The winner of Tasmania's premier harness race has been disqualified over what has been described as a shocking breach of the rules by the horse's driver.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The decision, possibly the first of its kind in Australia, comes almost six weeks after the running of the $75,000 Tasmania Cup in Hobart.
Victorian-trained pacer Bullys Delight was first past the post ahead of local runners The Shallows and Lip Reader.
Connections of both minor placegetters lodged protests on the grounds that winning driver Rhys Nicholson had caused interference to their runners by allowing his horse to drift up the track in the home straight and had breached the rules relating to whip use and hocking (allowing his foot to contact the back of his horse's leg).
Stewards dismissed the protests, concluding that there was no interference that warranted altering the result and that whip and hocking offences could not be used to uphold protests as the advantage gained was not definable.
ELSEWHERE IN SPORT
However they advised all parties on the night that consideration would be given to invoking AHRR 174 which has no impact on betting but allows for a horse to be disqualified or demoted if a driver is found guilty of serious breaches of the rules.
Nicholson was found guilty of a number of charges and suspended for 12 meetings and fined $3200.
The Office Of Racing Integrity subsequently appointed retired NSW chief thoroughbred steward Ray Murrihy to conduct an inquiry into whether AHRR 174 should be invoked.
Rhys Nicholson appeared at the inquiry last week and Murrihy also took evidence by video conference from the horse's trainer John Nicholson and owners.
Murrihy's decision was that Bullys Delight be relegated from first to last (costing connections $37,500 in prizemoney) and the placings amended to: The Shallows 1, Lip Reader 2, Earl Jujon 3, Izaha 4.
Murrihy found that Rhys Nicholson's actions were deliberate and egregious (outstandingly bad and shocking) violations of the rules.
He said they were "so far outside of what is permitted ... that they would be viewed as an affront by any fair-minded person."