Auckland TC 31 December 2024 – R5 – CON GRAZIA LOVE

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, the Driver of 4th placed FEARLESS (Mr B Orange), lodged a protest pursuant to Rule 869A(2), against 3rd placed CON GRAZIA LOVE (Mr M McKendry).

It was alleged that horse No. 11 CON GRAZIA LOVE, contacted and punctured the sulky wheel of No. 9 FEARLESS, near the 300 metres.

The margin between 3rd and 4th placed horses was 1.25 Lengths.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 8    BELLE NEIGE

2nd  No. 7    HALBERG

3rd   No. 11  CON GRAZIA LOVE

4th   No. 9    FEARLESS

Rule 869(A) reads:

869A (1) For the purpose of this rule:
(a) “placed horse” means a horse placed by the Judge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th;
(b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race.

(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.

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 involved.

Mr B Orange, the Driver of FEARLESS, said that nearing the 300 metres, CON GRAZIA LOVE, who was trailing FEARLESS, touched his wheel and deflated the tyre, which then came off its rim.

Miss S Wigg, the Trainer of FEARLESS, said the films were obvious.  She said the incident clearly cost FEARLESS third place.

Mr S McCaffrey, the Trainer of CON GRAZIA LOVE, used the race films to identify what he believed to have been a “racing incident” prior to the 300 metres.  He said that BELLE NEIGE, who was trailing HALBERG, briefly touched that Driver’s helmet.  He said that as a result, BELLE NEIGE came back on to FEARLESS and in turn, CON GRAZIA LOVE, when shifting out and made contact with the sulky wheel of FEARLESS.  He said the incident was no more than a chain reaction.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He referred to the race films and pointed out that Miss Hackett’s head did go up, when her drive BELLE NEIGE has driven up onto the back of HALBERG.  In turn, there was an impact on the trailing two horses, FEARLESS and CON GRAZIA LOVE.  Mr McIntyre said there was some merit in Mr McCaffrey’s submission, and that there is a degree of mitigation with regards to CON GRAZIA LOVE touching the sulky wheel of FEARLESS.

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.

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

Decision

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee dismissed the protest.

Reasons

The evidence established that prior to the 350 metre mark, there was a brief concertina effect when the pace eased.  As a result, BELLE NEIGE came back onto FEARLESS.  At the same time, CON GRAZIA LOVE, who was trailing FEARLESS, shifted out in search of a run wider on the track.  In doing so, CON GRAZIA LOVE did make contact with the sulky wheel of FEARLESS, causing the tyre to puncture and come off its rim.  On that basis, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference did occur.

However, in assessing whether FEARLESS would have finished ahead of CON GRAZIA LOVE, the Adjudicative Committee took into account the 1.25 length margin between the two at the finish; the way in which both horses were travelling prior to, during and after the interference occurred; and the manner in which both horses finished the race off.

CON GRAZIA LOVE came from behind and has beaten FEARLESS by 1.25 lengths and that margin is particularly relevant in reaching a decision. Both horses had a clear run to the finish and whilst it is accepted that FEARLESS may have been at a disadvantage due to puncturing and having its tyre come off its rim, the Adjudicative Committee cannot, to any degree of certainty, weigh to a nicety the impact that may have had in terms of the final result.

Given the margin, the Adjudicative Committee is not sufficiently satisfied that, but for the interference, FEARLESS would have beaten CON GRAZIA LOVE and therefore the protest is dismissed.

Conclusion

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