Auckland TR – 11 January 2026 – R4 – SCOUSER

Evidence – Protest

Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest per Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider Mr M Cartwright alleged that horse No. 4 SCOUSER (W Kennedy) placed 2nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 9 CHAOURCE (M Cartwright) placed 3rd 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. 5 MOSHCHINO

2nd No. 4 SCOUSER

3rd. No. 9 CHAOURCE

The official margin between 1st and 2nd 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”.

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 race films were shown and the two horses involved identified.

Mr Cartwright the Rider of CHAOURCE said that “my horse was travelling well into the race and when I was going for a run, I struck trouble and clearly would have run second.”  He referenced the films pointing out that he was seeking a run next to PERMISSIVE (J Fawcett) when SCOUSER shifting ground inwards.

Mr J Stormont representing the Trainer of CHAOURCE said there was a lot of movement in the home straight and Mr Cartwright did have to check his mount.

Mr Kennedy the Rider of SCOUSER said that his was travelling well and went for a run behind the eventual race winner MOSCHINO, who at the same time hampered his progress. As a result, he had to shift inwards. He pointed out that at the time he shifted he was “well over 1 ½ lengths clear of CHAOURCE”.

Mr Cole Trainer of SCOUSER said that his horse was dictated inwards by MOSHCHINO. He added that his horse was always comfortably in second place.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that MOSCHINO did shift inwards at the 100-metre mark, and SCOUSER has changed ground, inwards. At the same time Mr Cartwright has gone for a run inside of SCOUSER and had to be checked. He said the Adjudicative Committee will need to decide the extent to which the movement of MOSCHINO and SCOUCER contributed. He also pointed out that CHAOURCE has come from behind SCOUCER and on that basis the protest had merit, but emphasised consideration had to be given to whether SCOUSER was solely at fault or the winner (MOSHCHINO) contributed.

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 proven, 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 considering all the evidence, the Adjudicative Committee found that over the concluding stages of the race there was movement from a number of horses. MOSCHINO did run about under pressure when it got to the front but was well clear of other runners. Mr Kennedy, who was racing behind and clear of MOSCHINO did shift inwards, in anticipation of that horse running about. Mr Cartwright also anticipated movement, from his inside (PERMISSIVE) and the gap he has looking to take on the inner of SCOUSER and had to angle away from that horse. But despite being hampered for a stride, its loss of momentum was minimal. Notwithstanding, CHAOURCE did finish the race off strongly.

Therefore, after considering the various contributing factors, and in particular the nature of the interference; manner in which both horses finished the race off over the final stages and the neck margin, the Adjudicative Committee could not be comfortably satisfied that had the interference not occurred CHAOURCE would have finished in advance of SCOUSER.

Accordingly 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 per its decision.