Whangarei RC 16 July 2022 – R2 – ALICE TINKER

Evidence

Following the running of Race 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, P Gerard, Trainer of TARGHEE, alleged that horse Number 1 (ALICE TINKER) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse Number 5 (TARGHEE) placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st    No. 1 ALICE TINKER

2nd   No. 5 TARGHEE

The official margin was 1.5 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.

Ms Gerard stated that as ALICE TINKER and TARGHEE entered the straight, both horses were racing on the bridal. She said that TARGHEE came alongside ALICE TINKER and ALICE TINKER started to intimidate TARGHEE. Ms Gerard said that TARGHEE had to shift ground and the intimidation then resulted in a sharp check as ALICE TINKER shifted outwards. She said that the combined check and intimidation cost TARGHEE 1.5 lengths. She added that TARGHEE had to balance and started to come at ALICE TINKER late before ALICE TINKER moved into her path again, resulting in M Hashizume having to stop riding TARGHEE briefly.

The Rider of TARGHEE (M Hashizume) stated his horse was travelling nicely, before ALICE TINKER moved out 4-5 horse widths inconveniencing him. He said TARGHEE was running home very well once it got a clear run.

The Respondent N Fraser stated that ALICE TINKER was well clear when she shifted outwards and she was surprised that there was a protest.

The Rider of ALICE TINKER (D Danis) said TARGHEE had the entire length of the straight to go past him but didn’t and if TARGHEE was good enough it would have gone past him. He said that when ALICE TINKER shifted ground it was well clear of TARGHEE.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that ALICE TINKER was approximately ½ length ahead of TARGHEE prior to ALICE TINKER shifting out at around the 250m forcing TARGHEE off its line. He said there was a further shift by ALICE TINKER later in the straight but it was difficult to establish if interference had even occurred at this point.

He said that the Adjudicative Committee needed to establish if not for the interference would TARGHEE have beaten ALICE TINKER.

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 entering the home straight ALICE TINKER was racing approximately 2 widths off the running rail with TARGHEE to its outer and slightly behind. ALICE TINKER drew approximately 1 length clear of TARGHEE just prior to the 250m and then shifted out abruptly. This resulted in TARGHEE being shifting off its running line, prior to the Rider of ALICE TINKER straightening.

Approximately 120m from the finish ALICE TINKER shifted out again however was approximately 1.5l clear of TARGHEE at this point and interference did not occur.

The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that ALICE TINKER did interfere with the chances of TARGHEE at the 250m point, however, having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the margin of 1.5 lengths at the finish the Adjudicative Committee determined that the level of interference did not equate to the beaten margin.  On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is 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.