Auckland TR 18 October 2025 – R3 – THE NOMAD

Evidence

This is an ‘uncontested protest’ that follows from the running of Race 3.

An Information was filed Instigating a Protest per Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Mr J Bell alleged that horse No. 3 (THE NOMAD) placed 4th by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 5 (ZENITH) placed 5th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

4th  THE NOMAD (M Cameron)

5th  ZENITH (C Berge)

The official margin was a nose between fourth and fifth.

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”.

Interference is defined as:

• a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
• a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
• a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

Submissions for Decision

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee asked that Stewards show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners. Four camera angles were available, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and turn. Overhead drone footage was also shown. This was particularly helpful.

Using the available race films, the Applicant Mr Bell referred to the top of the straight to the winning post. He showed that his horse, ZENITH, was forced wider in the track in the run up the straight by THE NOMAD. Using the mowing strip as a guide, Mr Bell estimated that his horse was forced at least nine strips wider in the track. He said that Mr Cameron continued to ride his mount forward and made no attempt to stop riding, whilst “leaning all over” his horse. Mr Bell concluded that given ZENITH was beaten by a “lip”, he has no doubt ZENITH would have beaten THE NOMAD.

Mr Berge, Rider of ZENITH, said that the horse on his inside (THE NOMAD) contacted his horse several times.

After viewing the race films and hearing the Applicant’s submissions, the Respondent Mr Cole, said that he does not dispute Mr Bell’s objection and accepted that interference did occur, and but for the interference, given the nose margin, ZENITH would have beaten THE NOMAD. On that basis, he conceded the protest and said that it was ‘uncontested’. For the record, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones agreed.

Reasons for Decision

Mr Cole conceded that his horse (THE NOMAD) interfered with the chances of ZENITH and but for the interference, ZENITH would have beaten THE NOMAD. This is supported by the race films, and the Adjudicative Committee concurs, and the protest is therefore uncontested and upheld. THE NOMAD is relegated from 4th to 5th and ZENITH is promoted to 4th.

Decision

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