09 Dec 2011
Auckland-Tc - R 7
18 Apr 2013
Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC 18 April 2013 - R 1 (instigating a protest)
22 Jun 2012
Thames HRC 22 June 2012 - R 2 (instigating a protest)
13 Apr 2012
Franklin TC 13 April 2012 - R 1 (instigating a protest)
Auckland TC 9 December 2011 - R 7 (instigating a protest)
Created on 15 December 2011
Respondent(s):TM Williams - Driver of HERE WE GO AGAIN
Informant:Mr JM Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
Horse Name:HERE WE GO AGAIN
Persons present:J Gameson - Trainer of HERE WE GO AGAIN
TM Williams - Licensed Junior Horseman Driver of HERE WE GO AGAIN
T Macfarlane - Licensed Open Horseman assisting Mr Williams
M Purdon - Driver of TWIST AND TWIRL
K Breckon - Owner on TWIST AND TWIRL
BM Mangos - Driver of SECRET DESIRE
Following the running of Race 7 an Information Instigating a Protest was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against the first placing of horse number 13 HERE WE GO AGAIN (Driver TM Williams) on the grounds of causing interference with approximately 150 metres to run to horse number 2 TWIST AND TWIRL (Driver M Purdon).
The Protest was contested.
Rule 869(4) provides:
“No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”.
Rule 869(4A) provides:
“No horse shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with any other horse or its progress.”.
Rule 869(8) provides:
“The Judicial Committee may in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 thereof place any horse which:
(a) may have gained an advantage by any conduct or interference prohibited by any preceding provision of this Rule and/or;
(b) may have interfered with, or whose horseman may have interfered with, the progress or chance of any other horse or horses -
immediately after any horse from which it may have gained an advantage or whose chances or progress may have been affected thereby.”.
Mr Gameson as the Trainer of HERE WE GO AGAIN advised this Committee that he represented the connections of that horse. Mr Breckon confirmed to the Committee that he represented Breckon Bloodstock Limited the Owner of TWIST AND TWIRL.
Submissions For Decision:
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video films and these showed HERE WE GO AGAIN in front at the 200 metre mark and TWIST AND TWIRL had come up alongside that horse. Mr Muirhead said that when Mr Williams pulled the ear plugs that his horse had run out and had caused TWIST AND TWIRL to run out further in the straight and this had caused interference to SECRET DESIRE. Mr Muirhead said that the official margin between first and second was a nose although this was corrected to a head and that SECRET DESIRE finished sixth approximately 2.7 lengths from the winner.
Mr Purdon said that HERE WE GO AGAIN had ducked out at approximately the 150 metre mark and that he had to check his horse and he then finished on. He said that the interference had stopped his horse’s momentum.
Mr Mangos said that he was checked in the incident but that it did not make a lot of difference because he was fifth at the time and another horse ran past him in the straight and he ultimately ran sixth.
Mr Williams using the film told this Committee that once the horses straightened up that Mr Purdon’s inside wheel was already inside the line of his outside wheel. He said that Mr Purdon had come from behind him. He said that with the wheel being inside his it made it look worse than it was. Mr Macfarlane in support said that Mr Purdon continued to drive his horse out throughout the incident. He also continued to drive his horse out right to the finish. Mr Macfarlane said that Mr Purdon had every opportunity to beat Mr William’s horse but he was not good enough to get past him. Mr Macfarlane said that he did not see where Mr Purdon had to check his horse and that he had just carried on driving.
Mr Gameson said that Mr Williams had run out slightly but that he had taken corrective action immediately. He also said that Mr Purdon had not stopped driving and had had every opportunity to beat his horse.
Mr Breckon thought that Mr Purdon had had to check his horse and his momentum was interrupted.
Reasons For Decision:
The Committee has listened to the evidence and has viewed the films several times. The films show the movement of the relevant horses but although we find that some interference had occurred, we are required under Rule 869(8) to assess whether the chances of Mr Purdon’s horse were affected. We note that although Mr Purdon had to move out slightly he did not stop driving at any stage and that he had every opportunity to catch HERE WE GO AGAIN and was unable to do so. Even though the margin was a head it was our opinion that that margin had existed for some time prior to the finish and that Mr Purdon’s horse was not making any ground on Mr William’s horse.
The protest is accordingly dismissed.
It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the official result.