Cambridge-Te Awamutu HRC 5 June 2010 - R 4(instigating a protest)
870 (4) and Breaking Horses Regulations
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: J W Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: N/A
Information No: 11815 (instigating a protest)
Meeting: Cambridge – Te Awamutu Harness Racing Club
Date: 5 June 2010
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Race: 4
Rule No: 870 (4) & Breaking Horses Regulations
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – B J Scott & L N McCutcheon, Committee Members
Plea: N/A
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 4, Harness Jewels 3-Y-O Ruby, Information No. 11815 instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J W Muirhead, against MIAMI H (F D Cooney), placed 4th by the judge, on the ground of “breaking from its gait approximately 200 metres after the start for approximately 170 metres”.
Mr D M Balle, co-trainer of MIAMI H, had endorsed on the information form “on behalf of owners” to the effect “I do not contest protest”. The Committee was informed by Mr Muirhead that Mr Balle did not wish to be present at the hearing of the information.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) Any horse which breaks from its gait shall promptly regain its proper gait.
(4) Any horse which breaks from its gait in any race and:-
(a) which fails to promptly regain its proper gait . . . may (in addition to any penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 hereof) subject to the provisions of the Breaking Horses Regulations made by the Executive, be placed by the Judicial Committee immediately after any other horse in respect of which any advantage may have been gained.
The Breaking Horses Regulations provide as follows:
For the avoidance of doubt and in order to clarify the situation for all parties concerned, the following shall apply with regard to breaking horses:
(a) Any horse which breaks from its gait, either at the start or during the running of any race and continues on in the break for a distance of 150 metres or greater, shall be deemed to be in breach of Rule 870 (3) in that it has failed to promptly regain its proper gait.
Where a protest has been duly lodged against the placing of an offending horse, the Judicial Committee shall either:
(i) relegate such horse under Rule 870 (4) to behind any other horse in respect of which an advantage may have been gained; or
(ii) disqualify it from the race under Rule 1003 (2).
SUBMISSION(S):
Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, showed video replays of the first 300-400 metres of the race. He pointed out MIAMI H, shortly after the start, working to the lead when it went into a break. Mr McIntyre told the Committee that the track marker pylons were 10 metres apart. He alleged that MIAMI H had continued in a gallop for a distance of approximately170 metres, a distance in excess of the distance referred to in the Regulations.
The Stewards sought disqualification of MIAMI H.
REASONS:
The Committee was satisfied from the video evidence that MIAMI H had broken from its gait shortly after the start of the race and had continued on in a break for a distance of 150 metres or greater in breach of the Breaking Horses Regulation. The Committee also noted that Mr Balle, co-trainer of MIAMI H, did not contest the protest.
DECISION:
The protest was upheld. MIAMI H was disqualified from the race pursuant to Rule 1003 (2). Consequent upon the disqualification of MIAMI H, the amended result for the race is:
1st 6 Vulcan
2nd 12 Kahdon
3rd 7 Boizel
4th 8 Sonofanearl
5th 4 Rhythmic Sun
6th 5 Chocolate Brownie
R G McKenzie B J Scott and L N McCutcheon
CHAIR Committee Members
11815
