Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 25 February 2022 – R7 – SHE’S RECOMMENDED

Evidence

Following the running of Race number 7, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant , Ms T Comignaghi, Class A Rider,  alleged that horse number 11 SHE’S RECOMMENDED placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 5 O’JUDE 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.1 THE BUFFER

2nd  No.11 SHE’S RECOMMENDED

3rd   No.5 O’JUDE

4th   No.4 LORD DARCI

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was 1/2 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. This showed SHE’S RECOMMENDED shifting ground inwards making contact with and dictating O’JUDE in approximately 5 horse widths over the concluding stages.

The Applicant , Ms Comignaghi, Rider of O’JUDE, stated that she had received interference over the concluding 100m, was dictated inwards with contact being made on 3 occasions. She submitted that her mount was unbalanced by the interference suffered and this had affected her chances.

The Respondents concurred that there was movement inwards from SHE’S RECOMMENDED and contact made but that O’JUDE’s Rider had never stopped riding and the horse had every opportunity to improve past SHE’S RECOMMENDED over the concluding stages.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference stating that the inward movement of SHE’S RECOMMENDED caused a dictation inwards of approximately 5 horse widths. This he said denied O’JUDE the opportunity of racing in a true line to the finish giving it every opportunity to the line. Mr Oatham stated that contact was made on 3 occasions which clearly unbalanced O’JUDE to a degree affecting the horse’s chances. He added that the margin of 1/2 a head was another factor for the Adjudicative Committee to consider.

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 SHE’S RECOMMENDED clearly shifted ground inwards for approximately 5 horse widths making contact and dictating O’JUDE inwards over the concluding stages. It was also clear that the contact made, although not forceful, was enough to unbalance O’JUDE to a degree, combined with the dictation inwards, and with the margin of 1/2 head, the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that but for such interference O’JUDE would have finished ahead of SHE’S RECOMMENDED without the interference received in the run to the post.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that SHE’S RECOMMENDED did interfere with the chances of O’JUDE, and having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the close margin of 1/2 head at the finish the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, O’JUDE would have beaten SHE’S RECOMMENDED.

On that basis the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st  No.1 THE BUFFER

2nd  No.5 O’JUDE

3rd  No.11 SHE’S RECOMMENDED

4th  No.4 LORD DARCI

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