NZ Metro TC 10 December 2023 – R9 – JOLIMONT

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 9, Garrards New Zealand Pacing Derby (Mobile Start) (Group 1), an Information instigating a protest was filed by Open Driver, Jonny Cox, Driver of ALTA METEOR, placed 5th by the Judge, against Open Driver, David Butcher, Driver of JOLIMONT, placed 4th by the Judge, alleging “interference over the concluding stages when JOLIMONT shifted outwards hampering ALTA METEOR”.

The Judge’s official placings were as follows:

1st    4  Merlin

2nd   6  Don’t Stop Dreaming

3rd    2  Sooner The Bettor

4th    5  Jolimont

5th  14  Alta Meteor

The official margin between 4th and 5th was a head.

Rule 869A(2) provides:

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.

EVIDENCE:

At the commencement of the hearing, the Adjudicative Committee asked Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, to show a video replay of the alleged interference and identify the runners involved.

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, pointed out inside the final 100 metres, ALTA METEOR, driven by Mr Cox, racing 5th behind and to the outside of JOLIMONT, racing 4th, both well clear of following runners.

Mr Cox referred to the head-on video replay and alleged that JOLIMONT had “rolled out”, forcing him to stop driving his runner out and pull off to avoid locking wheels. He felt that, at the time, he was a ½ length behind JOLIMONT and had finished up running it to a head. He believed that he would have finished 4th, but for having to check off Mr Butcher’s wheel. Mr Butcher had not kept a straight line, he alleged.

Mr Butcher said that he had not come out far, no contact had been made and he had held Mr Cox’s runner at the line.

The Adjudicative Committee asked Mr McIntyre to point out on the video replay the marker 50 metres from the finishing line. Mr McIntyre did so and suggested that the interference had occurred 35-40 metres from the finish.

Mr McIntyre was asked for his assessment of the incident. Mr Butcher’s movement was minimal, he said. He acknowledged that Mr Cox had to shift away to avoid locking wheels, but he could not see Mr Cox’s runner losing any momentum.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Rule requires the Adjudicative Committee to investigate two matters when considering the merits of a protest. Firstly, in this case, did JOLIMONT cause interference to ALTA METEOR and, secondly, if so, would ALTA METEOR have finished ahead of JOLIMONT if that interference had not occurred?

With regard to the first of those considerations, the video replays established that, approximately 30-40 metres from the finishing line, JOLIMONT did shift out, albeit slightly, towards ALTA METEOR. There was interference, but momentary.

Turning to the second matter that the Adjudicative Committee needs to consider, the Adjudicative Committee finds the following. Firstly, Mr Cox may have had to check his runner, which did not appear to lose momentum, for, perhaps, a stride at the most. Secondly, any interference took place close to the finishing line, 30-40 metres. Thirdly, the Adjudicative Committee observed that JOLIMONT was holding ALTA METEOR quite comfortably at the finish and, finally, the margin at the finish between the two runners was a comfortable head. Having regard to all of those matters, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that ALTA METEOR would have finished ahead of JOLIMONT.

CONCLUSION:

The protest was dismissed and it was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the Judge’s placings (above).