Feilding JC 3 June 2010 - R 9 (instigating a protest)
642(1)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Paul Pascoe - Trainer of WHATA TESER
Defendant: V. Johnston - Rider of RAPID VOYAGE
Information No: 31090 (instigating a protest)
Meeting: Feilding Jockey Club
Date: 3 June 2010
Venue: Awapuni
Race: 9
Rule No: 642(1)
Judicial Committee: N. Moffatt, Chairman - T. Castles, Committee Member
Also Present: R.Myers (rider of WHATA TESER) and
Mr John Barneo (part-owner of RAPID VOYAGE)
CHARGES:
This was a protest lodged by Mr Pascoe alleging that RAPID VOYAGE or its rider placed 1st by the judge interfered with the chances of WHATA TESER placed 2nd by the judge. The interference occurred in the home straight.
FACTS:
The judge’s placings were:
1st RAPID VOYAGE
2nd WHATA TESER
3rd TEASJAH
4th MAJESTIC RANSOM
The official margin between 1st and 2nd placed horses was half a neck.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Pascoe showed the head-on, side-on and rear view videos of the final stages of the race outlining where he believed his horse suffered interference. He said that RAPID VOYAGE had rolled outwards and lent on WHATA TESER for several strides affecting that horse’s chances.
Ms Myers said that she was travelling really well until RAPID VOYAGE made contact with her which caused her to lose a little bit of balance. She did not have to stop riding but said that her momentum had been affected by the interference.
Ms Johnson admitted shifting outwards on RAPID VOYAGE but said that the other horse had moved inwards as much as she had moved outwards. When the two horses came into contact she pulled her mount off and became unbalanced as well.
Mr Barneo said that both horses had moved off their line but no momentum had been lost by WHATA TESER. He said that if the other horse had won he would have had a case to protest himself.
For the stewards Mr Goodwin said that both horses became unbalanced when contact was made and that both horses had shifted ground.
DECISION:
After considering all the submissions and viewing the films the protest was dismissed and placings were allowed to stand as called by the judge.
REASONS:
While the committee accepted that the two horses came together and made contact we were not convinced that the winner could be held solely responsible for the interference. The films were clear in showing that while RAPID VOYAGE did move outwards WHATA TESER moved inwards at the same time. Both horses had contributed to the incident.
It was also noted that Ms Myers was not making any ground on the winner nor was she prevented from riding her mount out to the finish.
N. Moffatt T. Castles
CHAIR Committee Member
31090
