Thames HRC 16 October 2010 - R 5 (instigating a protest)
869
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr JM Muirhead
Defendant: N/A
Information No: 13845 (Instigating a protest)
Meeting: Thames Harness Racing Club
Date: 16 October 2010
Venue: Alexandra Park Raceway, Auckland
Race: 5
Rule No: 869
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott, Chairman - GR Jones, Committee Member
FACTS:
An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead instigating a protest against the 4th placing of Another Impact on the grounds of causing interference to the 10th placed horse Whatawee Babe (Driver IJ Brownlee) on the grounds of causing interference to Whatawee Babe with 250m to run.
Present were Mrs C McGowan part Owner and Co-Trainer of Another Impact and Mr AG Herlihy the Driver of another Impact.
Mr IJ Brownlee the Trainer Driver of Whatawee Babe was also present.
Mr Herlihy at the outset acknowledged that interference to Whatawee Babe had taken place. He said that just before he pulled the cord for the ear plugs a stone had flown up from the track and got under his glasses and temporarily affected his vision. He said that as a result he pulled on his horse’s tail rather than the cord and this caused his horse to move in. He did say however that his horse was travelling better than Mr Brownlees and did not deserve to be put out.
It was pointed out to Mr Herlihy that the Committee had the task of assessing whether Mr Brownlee’s chances were affected or not.
Mr Muirhead showed the video of the race and showed that just on the home turn Whatawee Babe was racing inside Another Impact and Mr Brownlee tried to move up into a gap on the inside of Another Impact and that horse moved inwards and caused Mr Brownlee’s horse to break. In Mr Muirhead’s view the chances of Whatawee Babe were affected by this interference and accordingly he submitted the protest should be upheld.
Mr Brownlee gave evidence and he confirmed that there had been interference to his horse and that caused it to break. He said that at the time he was just getting into the race but he did say that his horse would not have beaten Mr Herlihy’s horse.
DECISION AND REASONS:
The Committee viewed the films of the incident several times and had the advantage of looking at the incident from several different angles. It was accepted by all parties that interference had taken place and the Committee then had to assess the effect of that interference. We have been told by Mr Brownlee that his horse would not have beaten Mr Herlihy’s horse and we can also establish that by viewing the films. In terms of Rule 869(8) we do not believe that Another Impact gained any advantage by its inwards movement on the home turn.
In assessing the evidence presented to us and in our viewing of the films we also do not believe that the chances of Whatawee Babe were affected as a result of the interference caused to it.
Taking all these matters into account we dismiss the protest. The placings stand.
