Wanganui JC 29 November 2025 – R5 – ONLY THE LONELY

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Steven Cole, alleged that horse number 10 (ONLY THE LONELY), placed 2nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse number 5 (CHICAGO JACK), placed 3rd 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       PLOY

2nd   No. 10     ONLY THE LONELY

3rd    No. 5      CHICAGO JACK

4th    No. 2       LANTERN WAY

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a neck.

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 the Stewards present all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the relevant runners. Head-on, side-on, and rear-view angles were shown.

Mr Dell, Rider of third-placed CHICAGO JACK, protested on the grounds that Mr Chung, Rider of ONLY THE LONELY, shifted out and dictated him wider, covering an additional two horse widths in the home straight. He submitted that while Mr Chung was able to ride with full vigour, he was restricted to riding hands and heels. Mr Dell stated that he was in front of ONLY THE LONELY shortly after the finish and that, with an uninterrupted run, he would have finished ahead of that runner. Trainer Mr Cole endorsed his Rider’s evidence and submitted that the narrow margin at the finish, supported the protest being given due consideration.

Mr Newman stated that any movement from his horse ONLY THE LONELY was minor and Rider Mr Chung, said that Mr Dell had every opportunity to get past him.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin advised that, in the view of the Stewards, ONLY THE LONELY shifted out marginally and that Mr Dell had not really been impeded in his riding.

Reasons for Decision

Under the relevant Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must first determine whether interference occurred. If interference is proven, the Adjudicative Committee must then decide whether, had that interference not occurred, the affected horse would have finished ahead of the other.

After considering all submissions and carefully reviewing the available footage, the Adjudicative Committee finds that the outward movement from ONLY THE LONELY was minor, did not prevent Mr Dell from riding CHICAGO JACK out to the line, and did not materially affect its momentum or ability to obtain clear running. The films also did not support Mr Dell’s assertion that CHICAGO JACK was ahead of ONLY THE LONELY shortly after the finish, with the respective positions of the two runners appearing unchanged beyond the winning post. In these circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that CHICAGO JACK would have finished ahead of ONLY THE LONELY, in the absence of that movement.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.

Decision:

Payment of dividends on the Judge’s placings was authorised by the Adjudicative Committee.