Auckland TC 14 March 2024 – R5 – ITAINTNECESSARILYSO

A double protest arose from the running of Race 5, the Dunstan Speedfeed Metro Trotters Heat 2 Mobile Trot. Pursuant to Rules 870(2)(c) and 869A(2), Senior Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay lodged an Information instigating a double protest, alleging that ITAINTNECESSARILYSO failed to lose ground in a break near the 1000 metres and affected the chances of EYRE I WILL.

The relevant Judge’s provisional placings were

1st  No 6

2nd No 11

3rd No 4

4th No 9

The margin between ITAINTNECESSARILYSO and EYRE I WILL at the finish, was one length.

Rule 870(2)(c) provides

When any horse breaks from its gait in any race its driver shall immediately take all reasonable steps to return it to its proper gait and where clearance exists immediately take such horse clear of the field.
(2) The following shall be a breach of sub-rule (1) hereof:
(c) failure to lose ground by the break

Rule 869A(2) provides

(2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

The Evidence

Using available film, Mr Mulcay identified the two relevant runners. Running into the front straight, ITAINTNECESSARILYSO (Mr Mitchell) was 3 wide improving forward, followed by EYRE I WILL (Mr Abernethy) on its back. At the 1200 metre mark, Mr Mitchell moved down, with Mr Abernethy moving up 3 wide at the 1100 metre mark. At the 1000 metre mark, ITAINTNECESSARILYSO rolled into a break and galloped for 75 metres. Mr Mitchell took hold initially, as he is required to do by the Rules and attempted to clear the field. Shortly after, he allowed his horse to gallop forward in an effort to clear the field, in particular Mr Abernethy. This meant that Mr Abernethy may have had to continue to race wider.

It was pointed out that ITAINTNECESSARILYSO was at the latter part of the gallop on the hind quarters of the lead horse and made ground, or at least does not lose ground. Mr Abernethy continued to run wide and does not cross Mr Mitchell for 300 metres.

Mr Abernethy said he would have crossed earlier. He accepted that Mr Mitchell tried his best to clear the field, but the gallop affected his ability to cross earlier.

Mr Mitchell agreed with the evidence given by both Mr Mulcay and Mr Abernethy. He said he gave his horse his head to clear the field and it immediately went back into its gait for the rest of the race. He disagreed with the suggestions that this meant it took 300 metres for Mr Abernethy to cross and argued it cannot be said that he was going to give up. He accepted that he made ground marginally, but pointed out this took place 1000 metres from the finish.

The protest was based on 2 issues:

(1)   Interference – considered very marginal in that EYRE I WILL was slightly carried wider by the actions of ITAINTNECESSARILYSO.

(2)  That ITAINTNECESSARILYSO gained an advantage when it broke – initially Mr Mitchell took hold of his horse when it broke and then let its head go, so he could clear the field. ITAINTNECESSARILYSO went forward, but immediately went back into its gait and therefore retained its position. EYRE I WILL was therefore posted 3 wide for approximately 300 metres. Mr Mulcay said EYRE I WILL could have got around ITAINTNECESSARILYSO earlier.

The Adjudicative Committee was referred to Rule 870(4) as being relevant for consideration. That Rule provides:

(4) Any horse which breaks from its gait in any race and:
(a) which fails to promptly regain its proper gait; and/or
(b) which is not taken clear of the field; and/or
(c) in respect of which all reasonable steps are not taken to return it to its proper
gait; and/or
(d) which fails to lose ground by the break; may (in addition to any penalty that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1003 hereof) subject to the provisions of the Breaking Horse Regulations made by the Board, be placed by the Stipendiary Steward immediately after any other horse in respect of which any advantage may have been gained.

Mr Abernethy crossed Mr Mitchell inside the 700 metre mark. Mr  Mitchell then trailed Mr Abernethy through to the 300 metres and then took ground off him and beat him by a length.

Decision

After viewing the available film and considering the submissions made, the Adjudicative Committee concluded that Mr Mitchell gained only a minor advantage while in a break. Mr Abernethy suffered little interference when Mr Mitchell broke and it cannot be certain that Mr Abernethy would have crossed earlier.  The incident was 1000 metres from the finish. The advantage gained by Mr Mitchell while breaking was insignificant and the effect on Mr Abernethy could not be clearly established. Also of relevance was, that at the finish, there was a length margin.

Taking all these factors into account, the Adjudicative Committee, in exercise of its discretion, dismissed both protests. In respect to Rule 869A(2), the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that EYRE I WILL would have finished ahead of ITAINTNECESSARILYSO, but for the interference.

In respect of Rule 870(2)(c), the failure to lose ground was insignificant and did not warrant a change in the placings.

Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.