Marton JC - 10 July 2010 - R 9
642(1)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION (Instigating a Protest)
Informant: J Parkes Licensed Jockey
Defendant: M & P Moroney
Information No: 30894
Meeting: Marton Jockey Club
Date: 10 July 2010
Venue: Awapuni
Race: 9
Rule: 642 (1)
Judicial Committee: N.Moffatt, Chair - Committee Member, T.Castles
Persons present: Mr J Parkes, Mr M Breslin, Mr H Kasim, Mr D Trubshoe
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 9, a protest was lodged by rider Jonathon Parkes alleging that I Robot or its rider placed second by the judge interfered with the chances of Ustibecasual placed third by the judge. The interference occurred in the final straight.
The judge’s placings were:
6 Bedlum
1 I Robot
9 Ustibecasual
5 The Caribbean
4 Sante Fe
The margin between the two horses involved in the protest was a half a head.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Parkes used the side-on, rear-view and head-on films to highlight the incident which he believed cost him second place. He said that after rounding the home bend he straightened his horse up for the run home but I Robot, who was to his inside, moved outwards and bumped him slightly moving him sideways. Mr Parkes said that the interference, on a heavy winter track, was significant and that he had got within half a head of I Robot at the finish line. In his opinion he had been cost second placing.
Mr. Breslin, the trainer of the horse interfered with, said after the bump I Robot continued to dictate the line of Ustibecasual moving him 3 – 4 horse widths further out on the track.
Mr Kasim, who rode I Robot, said that he was racing in behind the leading horse and after rounding the bend he angled his mount out to gain clear racing room. He told the committee that there was no contact between himself and Mr Parkes’s horse.
Mr Trubshoe, representative of I Robot, said that while the horses got close to each other Ustibecasual never got past I Robot over the concluding stages and that the placings should stand.
For the Stewards Mr. George said that the movement outwards by I Robot as he entered the home straight was quite common in racing and while there was slight contact between the two horses concerned he did not believe the interference suffered by Ustibecasual cost that horse second placing.
DECISION & REASONS
The committee carefully considered all the evidence and revisited the films in detail. Mr Parkes put in a worthy protest and we accept that he suffered some interference when I Robot, the horse ridden by Mr Kasim, angled outwards at the top of the straight looking for a clear run to the line. The two horses touched briefly and there was subsequent movement outwards by both horses.
In coming to a decision on whether to uphold the protest the committee had to decide whether the horse, Ustibecasual, would have finished in a higher placing had the interference not occurred.
To determine this we took into account the stage of the race where the interference occurred which was soon after entering the home straight. Both horses were moved wider on the track after the incident but Ustibecaual then had the whole length of the straight to get past I Robot which he did not. We also looked at the degree of interference suffered by Ustibecasual. The contact was slight and while Mr Parkes was forced wider on the track I Robot also covered extra ground. We therefore considered the interference to be minor. Finally we considered the margin at the finish and the manner in which both horses were finishing off the race. The margin of half a head is not a large one but Mr Parkes was not closing quickly on I Robot.
Considering all of the above we were not convinced that Ustibecasual would have finished ahead of I Robot had such interference not occurred therefore the protest was dismissed.
Placings were allowed to stand as called by the Judge and dividends authorized to be paid accordingly.
N.Moffatt T. Castles
Chair Committee Member
30894
