Auckland TR 29 November 2025 – R7- SWEYNESDAY

Evidence – Protest

Following the running of Race 7, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest per Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Apprentice Rider Ms T Mitchell alleged that horse No. 1 SWEYNESDAY (S McNab) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 4 HAVE A CRACK (T Mitchell) placed 2nd by the Judge.

The alleged interference was said to have occurred in the final straight, over the concluding stages of the race.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 1   SWEYNESDAY

2nd  No. 4   HAVE A CRACK

3rd   No. 9   HANKEE ALPHA

4th   No. 12  ESPADAS

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a three-quarters of a length.

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”.

Interference is defined as:

• a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
• a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
• a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

Submissions for Decision

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee explained the key elements of the Protest Rule, with particular reference to the fact that two limbs had to be proven for the protest to be successful. First, that interference occurred; and second, without it, the affected horse would have won.

The Adjudicative Committee asked that Stewards show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners. Four camera angles were available, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and turn.

Mr Ormsby, the Trainer of HAVE A CRACK, was not present at the hearing. He joined in via mobile phone. At the commencement of his submission, he said that he had not seen all of the race films, but had seen the incident live on Trackside TV. He said that his horse was contacted by the race winner (SWEYNESDAY) near the 150 to 100 metre mark. He said the contact was significant and it put his horse off stride when racing “head-to-head” with the winner and but for the contact, HAVE A CRACK would have gone on and won the race.

Apprentice Rider Ms Mitchell, submitted that she was racing “head-to-head”, when SWEYNESDAY shifted out and bumped her horse at the 100 metres. She said at that point, SWEYNESDAY had headed her mount, who then “kicked back.”  Ms Mitchell estimated that the bump cost her horse 2 lengths and given that the margin at the finish was three-quarters of a length, she believed that HAVE A CRACK would have beaten SWEYNESDAY.

Mr James, Co-Trainer of SWEYNESDAY, submitted that it was obvious his horse had moved out and he did not dispute that interference had occurred. Mr James said that the question for the Adjudicative Committee to consider, was whether the interference cost the second horse the winning of the race. Mr James submitted that SWEYNESDAY had come from 2 lengths behind HAVE A CRACK in the straight and drew well clear of it over the final stages. He said that had there been no movement from his horse, it would have still won the race clearly and Mr James concluded that he could not see how the second horse could have a case against his runner.

Apprentice Rider Mr McNab, submitted that he had trailed Ms Mitchell’s mount in the straight and come from 2 lengths behind. He said Ms Mitchell never stopped riding her mount out to the finish and prior to the point of contact, is mount had already headed HAVE A CRACK.

Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that SWEYNESDAY had come from behind HAVE A CRACK, after searching for a run. He said it “sprinted through on the inside and then shifted out abruptly near the 50 metres (8 strides from the finish)”. Mr Jones said that SWEYNESDAY had already gained a margin over HAVE A CRACK prior to the interference occurring, and therefore, despite the interference, SWEYNESDAY may still have won the race.

Reasons for Decision

Following the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must firstly be satisfied that interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means ‘more probable or than not’ that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that SWEYNESDAY shifted outwards abruptly near the 50 metres and made heavy contact with HAVE A CRACK, which was forced outwards onto two other runners. The outward movement of SWEYNESDAY was due to the horse’s racing manners, as opposed to any action or inaction by its Rider Mr McNab. The Adjudicative Committee is therefore satisfied that interference has occurred as a result of SWEYNESDAY’S shift.

Having proven that interference had occurred, the Adjudicative Committee then considered whether the horse so interfered with, HAVE A CRACK, would have finished ahead of SWEYNESDAY, had such interference not occurred.

It was of significance that SWEYNESDAY had come from at least two lengths behind HAVE A CRACK and it had headed that horse by the time contact had been made.

Whereas the connections of HAVE A CRACK believed that the interference occurred between the 150 and 100 metre mark, the films clearly show that the interference was closer to the 60 to 50 metre mark. Thus, a determinative factor was therefore the proximity of where the interference occurred, in relation to the winning post. The winning margin of three-quarters of a length was also a defining factor.

Ms Mitchell believed that the interference cost her horse 2 lengths, but the Adjudicative Committee does not support this, due to the manner in which both horses were finishing off the race at the point of contact. HAVE A CRACK was not pulling away from SWEYNESDAY before or after contact was made. Nonetheless, the contact was significant, but not enough to clearly establish that HAVE A CRACK would have beaten SWEYNESDAY.

Therefore, taking into account the official margin of three-quarters of a length and the manner in which both horses finished the race, the Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied to the requisite standard, that HAVE A CRACK would have finished ahead of SWEYNESDAY, had the interference not occurred.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed.

Decision

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