Auckland TR 13 March 2022 – R5 – WAIMOKU FALLS

ID: RIB8022

Stephen Marsh - Trainer

Shaun Clotworthy - Trainer of THREE SIXTY

Mr A Smith (Chair), Mr G Jones

Persons Present:
John Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Matthew Williamson - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Masa Hashizume - Rider of THREE SIXTY, Mathew Cameron - Rider of WAIMOKU FALLS

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement



Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Auckland Thoroughbred Racing

Race Location:
Ellerslie Racecourse - 100 Ascot Ave, Ellerslie, Auckland, 1050

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Ellerslie Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Upheld

Penalty: WAIMOKU FALLS relegated from 1st place


Following the running of Race number 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr S Clotworthy (Trainer of THREE SIXTY)  alleged that horse number 7 WAIMOKU FALLS placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 8 THREE SIXTY placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:


2nd  No. 8 THREE SIXTY

3rd  No.  4 DRAGON QUEEN

The official margin was a nose.

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.

The Applicant Mr Clotworthy submitted that it was clear that Mr Cameron’s mount has shifted out under pressure and touched THREE SIXTY once. He said that THREE SIXTY was dictated 4 horse widths outwards and Rider Mr Hashizume had to stop riding THREE SIXTY out fully to the finish. Whereas Mr Cameron never stopped riding at any stage.

The Rider of THREE SIXTY Mr Hashizume submitted that his mount was dictated wider on the track and over the last 50m WAIMOKU FALLS contacted his mount. He said that he could not use the whip properly over the last 3 strides but prior to that his mount was responding to his strikes.

The Respondent Mr Marsh submitted that THREE SIXTY shifted in first and both horses touched each other 1 stride off the line. Then referring to the films he said the only time they actually touched was right on the line.

The Rider of WAIMOKU FALLS (M Cameron) submitted that he totally agreed with Mr Marsh’s submission, he said that he was dictated outwards by DRAGON QUEEN who was racing to his inside. He added that THREE SIXTY shifted towards him and his horse “vaguely made contact and brushed on the line”.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the incident.  He said that initially WAIMOKU FALLS has shifted away from DRAGON QUEEN. Both WAIMOKU FALLS and THREE SIXTY shifted ground but WAIMOKU FALLS has shifted out and made contact with THREE SIXTY – one stride off the line. Mr Oatham said the Adjudicative Committee need to assess whether or not the contact made by WAIMOKU FALLS constitutes interference and if so, did it cost THREE SIXTY the winning of the race.

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 WAIMOKU FALLS has shifted out inside the last 50m and dictated THREE SIXTY wider on the track. In our assessment, light contact was made 10m to 15m from the finish line. During its deliberation, the Adjudicative Committee was able pause and synchronise the films and in doing so simultaneously viewed the point of contact and, in particular, where this occurred in relation to the finish line. A determinant factor in assessing the merits of the protest in relation to the degree of the interference and the impact the interference had on the outcome of the race, was the nose margin. Further to this, the Adjudicative Committee established that as a result of the interference THREE SIXTY was shifted two horses widths wider on the track, than it was prior to the interference, this too was a key factor in our decision.

In our opinion, but for the interference and given the way both horses finished the race and the very close margin between both runners, we believe, that had THREE SIXTY been afforded an uninterrupted run to the finish line it would have won the race.

On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion uphold the protest.


The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st   No. 8 THREE SIXTY


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

Decision Date: 13/03/2022

Publish Date: 15/03/2022