Banks Peninsula TC 25 September 2022 – R11 – NO MATTER WAT

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 11, Happy Birthday Pete – I See Gold Mobile Pace, Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, instigated a protest into the 3rd placed runner, NO MATTER WAT (Olivia Thornley), alleging a breach of Rule 870(3) in that NO MATTER WAT broke in excess of 50 metres inside the final 200 metres.

Rule 870(3) provides:

Any horse which breaks from its gait shall promptly regain its proper gait.

The Breaking Horses Regulation provides that “any horse which breaks from its gait within the final 200 metres of any race and continues on in the break for a distance of 50 metres or greater, shall be deemed to be in breach of Rule 870(3) in that it has failed to promptly regain its proper gait.

The Respondent, Olivia Thornley, was present at the hearing and indicated that the protest was contested. She declined the right to be assisted at the hearing by a Senior Driver.

The provisional placings were:

1st   11  Classie Linc

2nd  4  Sophia Bromac

3rd   2  No Matter Wat

4th 13  Star Casino

5th 12  Bo Duke

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williams, showed a video replay of the final 200 metres of the race. He pointed out NO MATTER WAT, driven by Olivia Thornley, racing in the trail as the field turned into the final straight. The horse then took the passing lane and went to the lead passing the 300 metres. Prior to the 200 metres the horse had paced roughly, Mr Williams submitted, before settling and pacing roughly again. It then stumbled and went into a break and continued in a break before settling. The Adjudicative Committee needed to determine whether the horse had been in the break for a distance greater than 50 metres.

Manager of Stewards, Nigel McIntyre, then gave evidence. He said that NO MATTER WAT had paced roughly near the 200 metres and had broken briefly inside the 200 metres before regaining its proper gait. It was not a continuous break and this did not concern Stewards, he said. Stewards were alleging that the continuous break occurred when the horse stumbled. By reference to the distance markers on the track, he showed that the horse had broken approximately 10 metres before the 100 metres mark after stumbling, and galloped to a point approximately 10 metres before the 50 metres mark before settling back into its proper gait. It could not be said with certainty that NO MATTER WAT had galloped for a distance of 50 metres or greater, Mr McIntyre said.

Ms Thornley’s submission was in line with Mr McIntyre’s – that is to say, that it was difficult to be certain that NO MATTER WAT had galloped for a distance of 50 metres or greater.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

NO MATTER WAT had paced roughly after taking the lead after turning for home. It broke for a couple of strides near the 200 metres before settling, although continuing to be rough in its gait. It is significant that Stewards indicated that they were not concerned with the horse’s gait prior to just before the 100 metres when it did break and continue on in a break to just before the 50 metres. It was difficult to assess the precise duration of that break, the video evidence being inconclusive. The distance was very close to 50 metres – it may have been more or less. The Adjudicative Committee needed to be satisfied that it was 50 metres or greater and, on the evidence, could not be so satisfied.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed and the Judge’s placing as above stand.