NZ Metro TC 25 March 2022 – R10 – MCCRIKEY
NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc
Addington Raceway - 75 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington, Christchurch, 8024
Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Outcome: Protest Dismissed
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Following the running of Race 10, Hagley Windows and Doors Mobile Pace, the Applicant, Manager of Stewards Nigel McIntyre, filed an Information instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 869(7B) alleging that MCCRIKEY, driven by the Respondent, gained an advantage by racing inside the pylons in the home straight.
The provisional placings were:
1st 1 McCrikey
2nd 2 Riveered
3rd 6 American Sniper
4th 5 Manjimup
The official margins were 2 lengths, 3/4 length, head, head.
Rule 869(7B) reads:
Where any horse or its sulky wheel moves inside the track marker line and gains an advantage the horse shall be disqualified from that race except where it is established that the breach was caused by interference by another horse or driver.
SUBMISSIONS FOR DECISION:
Manager of Stewards, Nigel McIntyre, pointed out on a video replay MCCRIKEY, driven by the Respondent, racing three places back on the markers on the back of MANJIMUP (Ross Cameron) and obviously travelling well, he said, as the field approached the home turn. Upon turning for home, Mr Cameron took up the position inside the leading horse, COACHELLA (Robbie Close). Mr McIntyre then showed that Mr May attempted to go inside Mr Cameron and, in doing so, went off the track, where there was not a full run. He was only able to pass Mr Cameron by going inside the marker line, he said. Mr McIntyre said that Mr May’s sulky wheel went inside two track markers.
Mr May said that he denied that there was not a sufficient run. He demonstrated on the head-on video replay that there was, he alleged, an estimated foot between his outside sulky wheel and the inside sulky wheel of Mr Cameron. It was just bad luck that his runner had ducked in slightly more than he wanted it to. There had been plenty of room, he submitted, even more so at the second marker, and the horse was always going to get a run.The horse was “bolting” and travelling that well that he was unable to activate the removeable hood, he said. The horse won the race by 2 lengths.
Mr McIntyre submitted that the run for MCCRIKEY was always going to be marginal.
The Adjudicative Committee put it to the parties that the degree of encroachment inside the marker line was only a matter of inches – in fact, the tyre had run over the first track marker. Mr May agreed and Mr McIntyre did not dispute it.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Adjudicative Committee has to be satisfied as to three determinative issues. Firstly, did MCCRIKEY shift inside the marker line? Secondly, did it gain an advantage and, finally, was the breach caused by interference from another horse or Driver?
After reviewing the video evidence and evaluating the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee found that Mr May had angled MCCRIKEY to the inside of MANJIMUP soon after entering the passing lane. The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that there was, at all relevant times, a sufficient run for MCCRIKEY, albeit initially a narrow one. The most significant factors in finding this were, firstly, the gap between the sulky wheels of the two runners as pointed out by Mr May at the point of the first marker that was struck and, secondly, the distance of the intrusion inside the markers was very minor – probably no more than 2-3 inches.
It was also relevant to the Adjudicative Committee’s finding that no advantage was gained by MCCRIKEY and it won the race by a 2 lengths margin. It was an astute drive by Mr May, and it was only the fact that the horse had shifted in very slightly to contact two markers in the home straight that resulted in the protest being brought.
In summary, the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that the sulky wheel of MCCRIKEY had shifted inside the track marker line free of interference but that, in doing so, it had not gained an advantage for the reasons given.
The protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand. Stakes and dividends are to be paid accordingly.
Decision Date: 25/03/2022
Publish Date: 28/03/2022