Matamata RC 7 June 2023 – R3 – ANALYST

Evidence

Following the running of Race 3, an Information was filed instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Mr Scott, Co-Trainer of second placed SERENA’S SPIRIT (No. 7), alleged that the first placed ANALYST (No. 1) interfered with its chances in the final straight.

The interference was alleged to have occurred over the concluding stages of the race.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 1   ANALYST

2nd  No. 7   SERENA’S SPIRIT

3rd   No. 2  CARTER RUSSELL

4th   No. 4   EL ZORO

The margin between first and second was a long head.

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”.

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, Stewards showed the available race films of the alleged interference. In addition, the provisions of the Protest Rule were outlined.

Submissions For Decision

The Applicant Mr Scott, referred to the films in the run up the home straight. He pointed out that at the top of the straight, there was a clear gap between SERENA’S SPIRIT and ANALYST, who was racing on its outer.  He said that ANALYST shifted inward and contacted SERENA’S SPIRIT. He submitted at that point, interference was established due to his horse’s line having been taken.  He added that nearing the 200 metres, ANALYST continued to shift in and it cost SERENA’S SPIRIT the opportunity to win the race.  He concluded by submitting that the interference cost his horse the win, because once it got clear racing room, it finished the race off rapidly in tough conditions (with reference to the heavy track).

Mr Hashizume, the Rider of SERENA’S SPIRIT, initially referred to an incident near the 800 metres, where he alleged ANALYST crossed his mount ‘sharply’. He then referred to incidents at the top of the straight and near the 200 metres.  He submitted that ANALYST kept laying in on him and the pressure was only relieved in the last 3 or 4 strides.  He added that he had to change his whip hand due to the pressure.

Ms Fawcett, the Rider of Analyst, said that she agreed that interference occurred in the home straight, but despite the interference, she said SERENA’S SPIRIT would never have beaten ANALYST.

Mr Old, Trainer of ANALYST said that although his horse shifted in, SERENA’S SPIRIT also shifted out.  He said that his horse was the stronger of the two at the line.

Mr Simpson outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He submitted that ANALYST did shift in, resulting is SERENA’S SPIRIT being slightly hampered.  He said that Mr Hashizume never stopped riding his horse out to the finish and Ms Fawcett did stop riding briefly to straighten her mount.  He concluded that Stewards do not support a change in placings.

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 approaching the 250 metre, mark both horses shifted ground.  ANALYST shifted in and SERENA’S SPIRIT shifted out.  As a result, both horses came together for a stride. Over the concluding stages, ANALYST shifted in one or two horse widths and SERENA’S SPIRIT was hampered.  On that basis, minor interference can be established.

Having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the long neck margin at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee does not believe that it is more probable than not, SERENA’S SPIRIT, would have finished ahead of ANALYST, had such interference not occurred.  Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Adjudicative Committee, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

The protest is dismissed, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with its decision.