R Rotorua 10 December 2023 – R5 – LORD JIMMY

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 5, the “Greenlight Insurance Brokers 1400”, Mr Doyle, the Rider of “BILLY BUNTER”, placed 2nd by the Judge, lodged a protest against Mr Danis, the Rider of “LORD JIMMY”, the horse placed 1st by the Judge.  He alleged that “LORD JIMMY” and Mr Danis “interfered with the chance of his mount when entering the final straight”.

The race films, head and side on, illustrated that on entering the home straight, about 350-370 metres from the finish, “BILLY BUNTER” although about last, was mounting a strong finishing run.  Mr Doyle’s mount was about 4 horse widths out from the inner horses.  Mr Danis, riding ‘LORD JIMMY”, was ahead and to the inside of “BILLY BUNTER’S” line.  Mr Danis steered his mount out so as to seriously inconvenience 3 horses on his outside [namely “MADIRAN” (S Spratt), “HEY HEY BABY” (M McNab), and “GRACE ‘N’ GLORY” (M Hashizume)] which in turn were forced onto the proper line of ‘BILLY BUNTER”.  This resulted in Mr Doyle having to check his mount, and move sharply out to a very wide position, about 8-10 horse widths, from which it finished very fast to be beaten a half neck.

Mr Doyle’s evidence was that he was adamant that but for the movement of Mr Danis, which pushed the other 3 runners into his path, to send his mount to near the outside fence, he is certain he would have beaten “LORD JIMMY”.

Reasons for Decision:

Mr Danis’ evidence and opinion was that he was “looking for a run” but had been dictated outwards by the mount of Mr Kennedy which was ahead of him.  The Adjudicative Committee did not accept that has in fact occurred and the race films did not support his view.

For the purpose of the Protest Rule 642(1) “interference is described as including where a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider, or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault .. Rule 642(2)(b)(iii)”

The issue first, was whether “LORD JIMMY” caused interference within the meaning of the Rule to “BILLY BUNTER”, and secondly, whether the Adjudicative Committee forms the opinion that the former horse would have finished ahead of the winner.

There was clear evidence, from the films and Mr Doyle, that interference occurred to “BILLY BUNTER” arising from the forcing of the 3 runners outside “LORD JIMMY” into the path of that horse so as to hamper it and being required to cover considerable further distance than ought to have been the case.

Decision:

The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied by a wide margin that, given the half neck between the first and second horses, and the speed of “BILLY BUNTER’S” finish over the final 25 metres, it would have finished ahead of “LORD JIMMY” had such interference not occurred.  In the exercise of the discretion given to the Adjudicative Committee by Rule 642(1), it was determined that the protest was justified and was to be upheld.

Accordingly, the revised placings were:

1st       5      BILLY BUNTER

2nd      2      LORD JIMMY

3rd      10     INVINCIBEEL

4th       6      ABANDON

5th       1      KICK START

6th        4     SPELLCRAFT