Franklin TC 28 May 2010 - R 2 (instigating a protest)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr JM Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  N/A

Information No:  13672 (instigating a protest)

Meeting:  Franklin Trotting Club

Date:  28 May 2010

Venue:  Alexandra Park, Auckland

Race:  2

Rule No:  869, 869(8)

Judicial Committee:   BJ Scott, Chairman - GR Jones, Committee Member

Present:  Mr S Reid Co-Trainer and Mr M McKendry Driver of Maid In Splendour. 

Mr Reid acknowledged that he represented the connections of that horse.

Mr G Wolfenden the Driver of Victoria Chapel

Mr Wolfenden was representing the connections of that horse.

FACTS:

An Information was lodged by Stipendary Steward Mr JM Muirhead instigating a Protest against the third placing of Maid In Splendour (Driver M McKendry) on the grounds of braking at the start and causing interference to the seventh placed horse Victoria Chapel (Driver G Wolfenden).

The Protest was contested.

Mr Muirhead gave evidence by use of the video film and he showed that at the start Maid In Splendour had drawn one and Victoria Chapel had drawn behind it.  He showed where Maid In Splendour broke soon after the start and he said that that horse came back on Victoria Chapel and as a result Victoria Chapel was interfered with and lost its possible position in the field.   Mr Muirhead then showed where Victoria Chapel had run on and finished seventh and he said that it was only two lengths from fourth.  In his view the interference caused by Maid In Splendour not only affected the progress of Victoria Chapel but also affected its chances.

Mr Wolfenden said that as a result of Maid In Splendour breaking he had to check his horse but his horse didn’t gallop and he had to go around Maid In Splendour.  He said that he had only lost one position in the race and he did say that if Maid In Splendour had have gone out from the gate quicker he might had been in a better position.  That did not happen however.  Mr Wolfenden could not say that his chances had been affected. 

Mr McKendry for his part said that he expected his horse to have started better but it was down on the inside of the track having drawn one and perhaps as a result of the softer footing his horse lost it’s gait and rolled into a break.  He did not think that he had really interfered with Mr Wolfenden’s horse and that Mr Wolfenden merely had to run around him and he said that that happens in all races. 

Mr Reid for his part concurred with Mr McKendry and said that what had happened was just one of those things in racing.

Mr Muirhead by way of a summary pointed to the fact that interference did occur and that Victoria Chapel had finished seventh and was only two lengths off the fourth horse and that its chances were affected.

DECISION:

The Committee has considered all the evidence put before it and has watched the films on several occasions.

In the Committee’s view any interference is minor and Mr Wolfenden was in a position where he had to avoid a braking horse.  This often happens in racing. 

The Committee is not satisfied that the chances of Victoria Chapel were affected to warrant a protest being upheld under Rule 869(8) and accordingly the protest is dismissed.

BJ Scott                       GR Jones                    

CHAIR                         Committee Member

13672