Taranaki RI 11 September 2021 – R7 – Protest – THE COSSACK

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Following Race 7 (NZB AIRFREIGHT ROAD TO JERICHO 3210) Rider S McKay lodged an objection against the winner pursuant to Rule 642(1).

The Information alleged that horse number 11 (THE COSSACK) or its Rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 15 (BRUCIE) placed 2nd by the Judge.

1st         THE COSSACK (11)

2nd         BRUCIE (15)

3rd          TWIN SPINNER (6)

4th         PENELOPE CRUISE (3)

The official margin between 1^st and 2^nd placed horses was a nose.

Submissions for Decision

Mr McKay showed the incident which he believed prevented him from winning the race. After coming around the final bend and straightening for home he was racing between and slightly back from THE COSSACK on his outside and TWIN SPINNER to his inside. Mr McKay said he was entitled to this run, but THE COSSACK crossed in front of him forcing him to check his mount and come to the outside of that runner. If he had been able to maintain his line Mr McKay estimated he would have beaten THE COSSACK by ½ length.

Ms Hemi disagreed that Mr McKay had been denied a run. She said there was always room for him to come through and if his horse had been travelling well enough it would have got through. She used the back straight camera (side-on) to show that Mr McKay did not have to check or stop riding at any stage. She said the other horse may have come out a little bit but if she had moved in it was just a “smidge”.

Mr Nelson appeared somewhat perplexed that a protest had been lodged and commented that he couldn’t see much in the incident.

For the Stewards Mr Goodwin said that THE COSSACK had not moved in at all. The other horse may have moved outwards but he would not support the protest.

Reasons for Decision

Rule 642(1) states:

If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to

another placed horse and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered

with would have finished ahead of the first-mentioned horse had such interference not

occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered

with.

The Committee viewed both the head-on and back straight angles again to understand Mr McKay’s reason for lodging the protest. The head-on view showed him looking for a run between the THE COSSACK and TWIN SPINNER. There was room for him to do so but Mr McKay then appeared to change his mind and angled out to make a run to the outside of THE COSSACK. The Committee could find no fault with Ms Hemi’s riding. She appeared to maintain her line of running and the side-on view confirmed that Mr McKay did not have to stop riding or check his mount due to any interference from THE COSSACK.

CONCLUSIONS:

Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and authorisation to pay dividends on the Judge’s placings and stake money was approved.