Ashburton TC 31 August 2025 – R11 – HI LIFE

Following the running of Race 11, Thanks “Woodlands” For Years Of Sponsorship Mobile Pace, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Maja Szukiel-Deans, alleging that HI LIFE (Riley Harrison), placed 4th by the Judge, “started from the incorrect position and gained an advantage”.

Ms Harrison, a Junior Driver, was present at the hearing of the Information. She was assisted by Licensed Open Driver, Gavin Smith.

The Judge’s placings were as follows:

1st    5   Oneroa

2nd   2   Jukebox Gypsy

3rd  16  Zoom X

4th   13   Hi Life

Rule 859 provides as follows:

(2)     No driver shall permit a horse to start and no horse shall start other than from its correct barrier position or in advance of its correct barrier position (either at a standing, mobile, or moving start), unless directed by the Starter.

EVIDENCE:

The hearing commenced with the Adjudicative Committee asking, Stipendiary Steward, Mrs Szukiel-Deans to read Rule 859(2).

Mrs Szukiel-Deans, then had Stipendiary Steward Shane Renault, show the available video replays of the start of the moving start 1700 metres race. “Moving Start” means “a start in which the starter shall signal a start whilst all horses or a horse running a time trial is in motion at the starting post but is not started by means of a mobile barrier”.

Mr Renault pointed out the runners involved – HI LIFE, driven by Ms Harrison, drawn barrier position 4 on the second row, behind SMOKING ASHES (John Dunn). BLACKJACK, driven by Gavin Smith, had drawn one position inside Ms Harrison, barrier position 3 on the second row.

Mr Renault pointed out that SMOKING ASHES went into a break approximately 100 metres prior to the start. Ms Harrison angled her runner inside SMOKING ASHES to avoid it but, after having done so, did not resume her correct barrier position, but remained to the inside of BLACKJACK and, effectively, started from a third line to the inside of and behind BLACKJACK, he said. She was then able to get a run along the marker line (settling four places back, the Adjudicative Committee noted). At the starting point, Ms Harrison should have been to the outside of BLACKJACK, Mr Renault said. Stewards were alleging that Ms Harrison’s runner gained an advantage by securing a run to which it was not entitled, and sought its disqualification.

Mr Smith said that Ms Harrison, had she remained in position, would have had the option of either getting onto his, Mr Smith’s, back or going to the markers and taking up the same position that she did. Whilst Ms Harrison did start from an incorrect position, she ended up where she would have in any event. She had also “handicapped” herself an additional 10 metres by starting on the third row, Mr Smith submitted. The only runner affected, Mr Smith submitted, was his own runner, but he had no intention of going down to the markers. In conclusion, Mr Smith submitted, Ms Harrison has not gained any advantage.

Mr Renault said that the Adjudicative Committee has a discretion whether or not to disqualify, and disqualification was not mandatory.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION:

Through an unfortunate set of circumstances, Ms Harrison has started from the incorrect barrier position. This was the second attempt at a “moving start” for the race, which is not an ideal way of dispatching a field. Ms Harrison’s runner has then gone on to finish 4th in the race. The Adjudicative Committee has a discretion to disqualify the horse if it is satisfied that, in starting from the incorrect barrier position, it has gained an advantage.

It was agreed by both parties, and accepted by the Adjudicative Committee, that Ms Harrison has, indeed, started from the incorrect barrier position.

However, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied, to the required standard of a balance of probabilities, that HI LIFE had gained an advantage. The Adjudicative Committee makes the following findings of fact:

1. Ms Harrison’s runner was inconvenienced when SMOKING ASHES galloped in front of her as the field was scoring up;
2. To avoid that runner, she shifted down the track to the inside of BLACKJACK;
3. She had an opportunity thereafter to move back into her correct position, but did not do so;
4. Her runner has started from a position further back, effectively in a “third row”, to the inside of, but behind, BLACKJACK; and
5. Her runner has finished up four places back on the markers which may, or may not, have been her preferred position and which is not, of itself, necessarily advantageous.

Having regard to those findings, the Adjudicative Committee cannot be satisfied, to the required standard of a balance of probabilities, that HI LIFE has gained an advantage by starting from an incorrect barrier position.

CONCLUSION:

The protest was dismissed. It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the Judge’s official placings as above.