Auckland TR 19 October 2024 – R5 – LEGALLY BINDING

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Chad Ormsby alleged that horse No. 3 LEGALLY BINDING, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 4, placed 4th by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred at the 1100m.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 3   LEGALLY BINDING

2nd No. 7   PINKY PIE

3rd  No. 1   DUPONT

4th  No. 4   LITTLE THIEF

The official margins were ½ Head, Long Head, ½ 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”.

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 Ormsby) said it was clear that interference had occurred and his horse had lost 1.5 lengths due to LEGALLY BINDING dictating the runner to its inside (MANORBIER), into LITTLE THIEF’S running line. He said that had this not occurred, his horse would have taken a trailing position and not been 3 back on the rails. He said his horse was lucky to stand up, due to the interference it suffered.

Mr Hashizume, the Rider of LITTLE THIEF, said that his mount would have definitely won, if it hadn’t been for the interference.

The Respondent (Mr Bergerson) said there was no doubt that his Jockey (W Pinn) got into the racing line of MANORBIER, however then straightened. He said that Mr Ormby’s argument centred on LITTLE THIEF taking a position behind the leader, had it not been interfered with. Mr Bergerson referred to the films and said that prior to the interference, MANORBIER looked to be going past LITTLE THIEF, who was easing and therefore LITTLE THIEF was always going to be in a 3 back racing position. He said that given the interference had occurred 1100m from the finish of the race, it would be very hard to quantify what bearing that would have on the outcome.

Mr Pinn, the Rider of LEGALLY BINDING, said that he agreed with Mr Bergerson’s assessment. He said that he looked across several times and he knew he had MANORBIER and LITTLE THIEF to his inside. He said he came across to the 3 wide line and then shifted to the rail, when he was clear. He said that he didn’t make contact with any horse and the problem had been caused by MANORBIER. He said that interference had occurred, but he didn’t believe he had caused it.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Brady Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He commenced by saying, there was no doubt interference had occurred and that LITTLE THIEF had lost around 1 length. He said that it was the Stewards’ submission that MANORBIER was going ahead of LITTLE THIEF prior to the interference occurring and the Stewards believed that LITTLE THIEF would have more than likely always been in a 3 back position. The Stewards rolled on the videos to the finish, showing that LITTLE THIEF had to extract itself from a 3 back position after entering the home straight, to be competitive at the finish.

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 interference had occurred to LITTLE THIEF around the 1100m mark. It was the Adjudicative Committee’s view, that the interference occurred as a result of tightening to LITTLE THIEF, as a result of MANORBIER being tightened and forced inwards, due to LEGALLY BINDING’S inward movement. The Adjudicative Committee was confident in its view that the actions of the Riders of MANORBIER and LITTLE THIEF prior to the interference, established that LITTLE THIEF was always going to take up a position 3 back on the fence.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference did occur to LITTLE THIEF, however it is not convinced that it cost it a more forward position in the race.

Having considered the level of interference, where the interference occurred and how the balance of the race played out for final 1000m, the Adjudicative Committee was not convinced that a change of placings was justified.

On that basis, in the exercise of its discretion, the protest is dismissed.

Decision

Protest Dismissed.