Chief Stipe

I'm sure you're well qualified to give it. What would you say?

I gather you aren't kidding. At least the stuffed turf track won't suffer.....not that it takes much racing to do that. Also saves Opex as they won't have to move the rail so many times.

Well I guess we won't have to worry about slow horses who like give in the ground. Final nail for jumps races if you eliminate the supply. About time NZTR and stakeholders looked to keeping as many horses in training as possible. Wont be enough soon to fund tracks and training centres. I guess Tim Mills will then move to a career in Hospitality.

The official reason. Manawatu RC 2 April 2022 – R6 – MAVEN BELLE ID: RIB8420 Respondent(s): Sam Weatherley - Jockey Applicant: L Innes Adjudicators: N Moffatt and N McCutcheon Persons Present: Mr R Bergerson, Mr L Innes, Mr M Walker, Mr S Weatherley Information Number: A17303 Decision Type: Protest Rule(s): 642(1) Plea: Contested Protest: 2nd v 1st Stewards Report Results Animal Name: MAVEN BELLE Code: Thoroughbred Race Date: 02/04/2022 Race Club: Manawatu Race Club Race Location: Awapuni Racing Centre - 67 Racecourse Road, Awapuni, Palmerston North, 4412 Race Number: R6 Hearing Date: 02/04/2022 Hearing Location: Awapuni Racecourse Outcome: Protest Dismissed Evidence Following the running of Race Number 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant L Innes alleged that horse Number 7 (MAVEN BELLE) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse Number 8 (WOLVERINE) placed 2nd by the Judge. The interference was alleged to have occurred over the concluding stages. The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows: 1st No. 7 MAVEN BELLE 2nd No. 8 WOLVERINE 3rd No. 3 WAITAK 4th No. 2 ANDALUS The official margin was 1 and ¼ lengths Rule 642(1) provides: “If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with”. Submissions For Decision Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee requested that Stewards show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners. Head-on, side-on, and rear-view aspects were all shown. Mr Innes was invited to explain his reasons for lodging the protest. He stated that Mr Weatherley (MAVEN BELLE) came from an inside position on the running rail. WOLVERINE had a clear run and was picking up momentum from the top of the straight. 25m (later amended to 75m) out from the winning post Mr Weatherley’s mount moved out under WOLVERINE’s neck which caused Mr Innes to pull his mount outwards off its heels and cost him winning the race. He said he would otherwise have won the race by 1 – 1 and ½ lengths. Mr Innes added that once past the post WOLVERINE was level with MAVEN BELLE and going away from that runner. Mr Bergerson said the films clearly showed that WOLVERINE was about to pick the leader up but was stopped dead in her tracks when MAVEN BELLE moved outwards and dictated her line of running. He said it was difficult to regain momentum when stopped at that speed. Mr Bergerson estimated the interference cost WOLVERINE a couple of lengths. Mr Walker asked the Adjudicative Committee to look at Mr Innes’ hand movements and notice that he never stopped using his hands throughout the incident. It was too close to the line, and he was never going to pick up 1 and a ¼ lengths on the winner. Mr Walker said the best horse on the day won and it was irrelevant what happened after the winning post because Mr Weatherley had already eased on MAVEN BELLE. Mr Weatherley said Mr Innes had not stopped riding at any stage and was still able to push WOLVERINE forward with his hands. He said it was a big margin, MAVEN BELLE was finishing on strongly and he did not believe that the second horse would have beaten him. Stipendiary Steward Mr Coppins outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference saying that while WOLVERINE was finishing quickly, they could not be certain that it would have beaten MAVEN BELLE. Reasons For Decision In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Adjudicative Committee must firstly establish that interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred. After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Adjudicative Committee established that with approximately 75m to go MAVEN BELLE ran out into the line of WOLVERINE forcing that runner off its rightful line of running, and as a result WOLVERINE lost a degree of momentum. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that MAVEN BELLE did interfere with the chances of WOLVERINE however relegation is not automatic. The Adjudicative Committee looked carefully at how both horses were finishing at the time of interference (both MAVEN BELLE and WOLVERINE were finishing strongly), where the interference occurred in relation to the winning post and the margin of 1 and ¼ lengths between 1st and 2nd placed horses. Taking all these matters into account the Adjudicative Committee could not be comfortably satisfied that had the interference not occurred WOLVERINE would have beaten MAVEN BELLE. On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest was dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. Decision Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.

Not quite related to @nod's questions but one issue is that it is clearly evident it isn't paying its way. So where is the opex going to come from? Will the South Island racing programme be manipulated to force as many horses as possible to race on the Synthetic Track?

I heard rumours but like a lot of things in racing.....whispers behind closed doors....and nothing changes or improves.

They were going very slow but I think he may have been slightly exaggerating. Although I may have misheard him say 13's. I think it was the win on Hong Kong. They slowed heaps as they exited the straight the first time.

Pinn has a lot more talent and potential than most of the apprentices. Heard him talking about pace - "they were only doing 15's so I went to the front"... Agree regarding Allpress but I've posted a couple of times now that I think she and a number of Senior Jockey's are a bit field shy due to the lack of quality of those around them.

You neglect to mention that Pinns horse cannoned into Allpress's after they jumped. Her horse lost a length because of it.

79 horses nominated for Auckland this Friday for 10 races. One of them is an Amateur Drivers race. 81 for 9 races at Cambridge on Thursday for 9 races. So neither are that good. IF Auckland can't sustain good fields then HRNZ should be looking at shifting another meeting elsewhere into that Friday night slot - it is a good revenue earning slot for racing as the competition is light from OZ. I can't see the point of having an Amateur Drivers race on a Friday night at Auckland. As for the $200. If it is coming out of the ATC's funds then good on them. If it is a HRNZ subsidy then NO given that in my opinion lot of the problems lie with them and not the clubs.

What IS THE PROBLEM? I hear everyone talking about THE PROBLEM but no one seems to be clearly defining the problem NOR its causes. That goes for officials, media and social media posters.

Wouldn't want to embarrass you again - it gets tedious. You just go back to watching your OZ racing.

So much for being Royalty. Although unlike proper royals you can buy into the Tangerine clan.

Here's one. https://loveracing.nz/RaceInfo/47606/6/Race-Detail.aspx

Is one enough or do you want more than one?

So you are now saying that not only are the Judiciary blind they are corrupt as well?

I knew that old chestnut would be rolled out. You have a short memory.

There was only a long neck in the Jungle Magnate case. The rider didn't stop riding but the horse shied and slowed both times it was hit on the nose. Innes had stopped riding before the interference. Just as he did when he chose not to get on Maven Belles back early in the race.

That assumes that Wolverine could keep up the rate I.e. hadn't come to the end of its run. Momentum wouldn't have been enough alone. Maven Belle kicked again.

That horse got hit twice on the nose by the other Jockey and it was a lot closer. http://www.racing.com/videos/2022-03-26/mornington-race-8--260322

Can you give us your erudite analysis of why the result should have been overturned? Should cameras been allowed in the Judicial room?

You obviously don't follow racing very closely. As I said in OZ the protest would have been dismissed in 5 minutes.

So you are saying the Judiciary are ALL "Blind Freddy's"?

The mistake was made by Innes before that. He was on Maven Belle's back and he pulled Wolverine up and lost two lengths. Maven Belle jogged the next sectionals. Why did Innes do that? Best Seller/Joe Kamaruddin were leaning in on him at the time but the Lethal of old would have hunted up and held his position. I just sense that our Senior Jockeys are all getting a bit gun shy.

I hope he requested Black Type Jockeys as well.