R Te Aroha 29 November 2023 – R1 – TAWI

Evidence

Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr G Richardson, Trainer of horse No. 1, STATE OF FEAR, alleged that horse No. 7, TAWI, placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 STATE OF FEAR, placed second by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 7      TAWI

2nd  No. 1      STATE OF FEAR

3rd   No. 10    BLUE BAY

4th   No. 11    JOYOLA

The official margin was a nose.

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.

The Applicant Mr Richardson, stated that STATE OF FEAR had come from some lengths behind TAWI and when that horse had moved inwards approximately at 150 metres, STATE OF FEAR had to shift in and his momentum had been affected. He considered there had been close contact on two occasions at about that point (150 metre mark). Mr Doyle, the Rider of STATE OF FEAR, stated that he considered that there had been contact and while he had not had to stop riding his horse, he could have ridden it out more strongly. He noted that a horse had to be 2 lengths clear to move into another horse’s line. Both Mr Richardson and Mr Doyle considered that given the winning margin was a nose, STATE OF FEAR would have won had it not been for the interference.

The Respondent Mr Mirabelli, stated that there had not been any interference from TAWI. Both horses had moved, but there had been no contact. Both horses had had a clear run to the line over the last 150 metres and Mr Doyle had not had to stop riding his mount. Mr Hashizume, the Rider of TAWI, stated that he believed there had been no contact between the two horses. Mr Mirabelli argued that TAWI was holding STATE OF FEAR at the line.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Selvakumaran outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. She noted that the initial movement was outwards from Mr Doyle’s mount STATE OF FEAR, who then had to angle in to take the run inside of TAWI. TAWI had held its line. The Stewards did not believe there had been any contact or interference, neither Jockey had stopped riding their horse out. The movement was 150 metres from the finish and both horses had then raced clear of each other to the line.

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 did not consider that the case for interference had been established. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that while there was some movement, this was prior to the 150 metre mark, and the initial movement outwards, was from Mr Doyle’s mount. There was no discernible contact between the horses, Mr Doyle had been able to ride his horse out to the finish and for the last 150 metres, both horses were clear of each other. After considering all the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee dismissed the protest 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.