Auckland TC 25 April 2025 – R3 – RIPPLES

Following the running of Race 3, Gallagher Insurance Young Guns 2yo Fillies Series Heat 2 Mobile Pace, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, alleging that RIPPLES (Blair Orange), placed 1st by the Judge, “interfered with the chances of ALECTO (Chris Alford), placed 2nd by the Judge, on the ground that RIPPLES shifted out near the 350 metres, locking wheels with ALECTO, resulting in ALECTO losing ground”.

The Judge’s placings were:

1st     3   Ripples

2nd    6   Alecto

3rd =  2   War City / 7  Olympic Ko

5th      4   Cool For Cats

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a neck.

Drivers, Blair Orange and Chris Alford respectively, represented the connections of RIPPLES  and ALECTO at the protest hearing.

The relevant Rule is Rule 869A(2):

When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, showed the incident on video replays. He pointed out the runners concerned – RIPPLES, driven by Mr Orange, the leader approaching the home turn, and ALECTO, driven by Mr Alford, to the outside of that runner.

Nearing the 300 metres, Mr McIntyre said, RIPPLES appears to shy up the track away from the grader on the inside of the track and briefly locked wheels with ALECTO, for approximately 10 metres. The latter lost momentum and, probably, ¾ length, Mr McIntyre submitted. Turning for home, both runners were racing together and had a “foot race” to the finish, he said. The margin at the finish was a neck.

Mr Alford said that, rounding the final bend, RIPPLES ran up the track. Prior to locking wheels, his horse was making good ground. He had to check his filly back and when the wheels came apart, RIPPLES had a two metres margin over him. Instead of being at least level or a neck in front, he was two metres behind it. But for the locking of wheels, he would have had an advantage on straightening instead of being behind still. He agreed that the wheels were locked for a distance of approximately 10 metres.

Mr Orange agreed that the wheels had locked up, after his runner had shied to the outside then came apart. It was alleged that the incident occurred with 350 metres to race and Mr Alford’s runner had had that distance to run him down in the straight, and has not been able to do so. The momentum of his own runner had been halted as well as Mr Alford’s, he submitted. Mr Alford’s runner got to within a neck, but had not been able to close that gap.

Mr McIntyre said that it was clear that Mr Alford’s runner had suffered interference by being shifted wider and losing some momentum, but had at least 300 metres to run down Mr Orange’s runner and was unable to do so.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Protest Rule requires the Adjudicative Committee to determine, in the first instance, whether interference has actually taken place. If the Adjudicative Committee finds that interference has taken place, its next task is to determine whether, but for that interference, in this case, ALECTO would have beaten RIPPLES.

In determining whether ALECTO has suffered interference in this case, the Adjudicative Committee carefully viewed the video replays and listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties. It was clear that RIPPLES had shied up the track with approximately 350 metres to race, that the two runners had locked wheels for some 10 metres, that ALECTO had its momentum slowed briefly and that it lost some ground. Interference, to the satisfaction of the Adjudicative Committee, was established on the evidence.

From the point of that interference, the Adjudicative Committee finds that ALECTO had every opportunity to make up any lost ground but was unable to do so and, in the final stages, RIPPLES was maintaining a margin over that runner, which margin it comfortably held to the finishing line. The final margin was a neck.

The Adjudicative Committee could not be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that ALECTO would have beaten RIPPLES, but for the interference.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed. It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the Judge’s placings (above).