Auckland TR 18 February 2023 – R8 – TEXAS

ID: RIB16020

Nicholas Bishara - Trainer

Mr R James and R Wellwood - Trainers of ROCCIA

Mr Adam Smith (Chair), G Jones

Persons Present:
Mr A Dooley - Stipendiary Steward, V Colgan - Rider of ROCCIA, J Bayliss - Rider of TEXAS, Mrs Selvakumaran - Stipendiary Steward

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement


ROCCIA 3rd vs TEXAS 1st

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Auckland Thoroughbred Racing

Race Location:
Pukekohe Park - 222/250 Manukau Road, Pukekohe Hill, Pukekohe, 2120

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Pukekohe Park Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Dismissed

Penalty: N/A


Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant R James, Trainer of ROCCIA  alleged that horse No. 3 (TEXAS) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse No. 12 (ROCCIA) 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. 3   TEXAS

2nd  No. 14  FABULOUS GAL

3rd   No. 12  ROCCIA

The official margin between 1st and 3rd was 1 length.

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.

Mr Wellwood stated that his horse ROCCIA was a long striding mare and he thought that with a clear run, ROCCIA was going to win. He said that TEXAS came across into the line of ROCCIA, causing the Rider (V Colgan), to take a hold of his mount for 6 strides and at that part of the race 100m, the interference cost them a chance of winning.

The Rider of ROCCIA stated that when TEXAS crossed in front of him, it stopped him in his tracks and after that, he finished strongly, only being beaten by ¾ length.

The Respondent Trainer N Bishara, said there was definite movement by TEXAS but the Rider of ROCCIA never stopped riding. He said TEXAS always held a commanding lead over ROCCIA and was getting away at the line. He said he didn’t think that TEXAS deserved to lose the race.

Mr Bayliss said he was the last Rider to go for his horse, as he knows he can run around when he hits the front too soon. He said that TEXAS had come off the back of ROCCIA and put two lengths on him before TEXAS started to try and pull up, providing an opportunity for ROCCIA to take ground off him. He said that TEXAS did shift abruptly and would have won by 3 lengths if he had run straight.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said Mr Colgan was badly inconvenienced when Mr Bayliss’ mount shifted ground outwards. He said that interference had clearly been established and the Adjudicative Committee needed to determine if not for the interference, would ROCCIA have beaten TEXAS.

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 identified that TEXAS had raced past ROCCIA at the 300m mark, and established an advantage over ROCCIA. Just prior to the 100m, TEXAS raced erratically and ran into the line of ROCCIA,  causing its Rider to take a hold for 3-4 strides to avoid heels. From the 80m mark, both horses had an interference free run to the finish line.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that TEXAS did interfere with the chances of ROCCIA, however having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the margins (1 length) at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee has some doubt that ROCCIA would have finished ahead of  TEXAS, had the interference not occurred.  On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.


Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.

Decision Date: 18/02/2023

Publish Date: 21/02/2023