Wanganui JC 23 November 2024 – R1 – VELTON

Evidence

Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr S Ramsay, alleged that horse No. 9 (VELTON) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 7 (SESIMBRA) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No.9   VELTON

2nd  No.7   SESIMBRA

3rd   No.5   ANUSHKA SHESASTAR

4th   No.3   QUINTEFEUILLE

The official margin was half a 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.

Ms Hemi stated she was following VELTON  into the home straight and around the 100m mark and elected to take a gap to the outside of that runner.  VELTON however, rolled out, denying her a clear run. Ms Hemi said she had to sit, steer and rebalance her mount, before closing on the winner at the post. Using the grass mowing strips as a guide, Mr Ramsey said it was clear that VELTON moved out several horse widths, causing interference to SESIMBRA, and with there being only a half-head margin at the finish, it cost his runner the race.

The Rider of VELTON, Mr Chowdhoory, maintained the best horse won the race and that both horses were a bit green. He said Ms Hemi was blocked for a run even before he moved outwards, and at no stage, did she have to stop riding. Mr Newman, who trains VELTON, said there was no doubt there was movement from his horse, but he believed that SESIMBRA was intimidated by VELTON and had veered out prior to VELTON’s outward move. He believed SESIMBRA had its chance to win.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He stated Ms Hemi was directly behind Mr Chowdhoory, when she angled out to take a gap to the outside of VELTON. Mr Goodwin said he would expect any Rider to do the same. Mr Chowdhoory moved outwards, causing interference to SESIMBRA and a degree of greenness may have caused SESIMBRA to move out wider than necessary. Ms Hemi then ran the other horse down to the line, getting to within half a head of VELTON. He said it was up to the Adjudicative Committee to determine if the incident had cost SESIMBRA the win.

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 had no doubt that interference occurred around the 100m. The head-on view showed Ms Hemi angle out from a position behind VELTON to take a narrow, but legitimate gap between Mr Chowdhoory and the Te Akau runner on her outside. Simultaneously, Mr Chowdhoory moved out into her line of running. While SESIMBRA may have stepped out slightly wider due to inexperience, the Adjudicative Committee determined that it was VELTON’s outward movement that initiated the shift, impeding SESIMBRA’s progress during the crucial closing stages of the race.

The side-on film demonstrates SESIMBRA’s strong finish over the final 75 metres, recovering from the interference and steadily closing the gap on VELTON.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that VELTON did interfere with the chances of SESIMBRA, and having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the close margin of half a head at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, SESIMBRA would have beaten VELTON.

Therefore, in exercising its discretion, the Adjudicative Committee upholds the protest and relegates VELTON to second place, with SESIMBRA being promoted to first place.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st   No.7  SESIMBRA

2nd  No.9  VELTON

3rd   No.5  ANUSHKA SHESASTAR

4th   No.3  QUINTEFEUILLE

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.