Auckland TR 19 November 2022 – R6 – AQUACADE

Evidence

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Mr C Zackey, Rider of second placed HULA BEAT (No 6) alleged that the first placed AQUACADE ridden by W Kennedy, interfered with its chances over the concluding stages of the race.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight. The margin between first and second was a short neck.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 11 AQUACADE

2nd  No. 6 HULA BEAT

3rd   No.  9 WHEAO

4th   No. 17 YOULEDO

The official margin was….

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”.

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. In addition, the provisions of the Protest Rule were outlined.

Submissions For Decision

The Applicant Mr Zackey (Rider of HULA BEAT) submitted that in the home straight, his mount was making ground on AQUACADE when that runner shifted out, impeded his progress and caused a loss of momentum. He said that his horse was also taken four horse-widths wider on the track by AQUACADE, and because of the interference, he had to check his mount.

In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Zackey said that he never had to stop riding his mount out to the finish.

The Trainer of HULA BEAT, Mr Marsh, submitted that the incident occurred close to the finish line and that he had nothing further to add.

The Rider of AQUACADE, Mr Kennedy submitted that although his mount shifted out, there was never any contact between the two horses.  He added that Mr Zackey never stopped riding and HULA BEAT also shifted out under pressure.

The Trainer of AQUACADE, Mr Noble, submitted that there was no interference and HULA BEAT shifted out under pressure. He reiterated that Mr Zackey never stopped riding and HULA BEAT would not have beaten AQUACADE.

Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He submitted that although minor interference occurred, it was not sufficient to justify a change of placings.

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 AQUACADE did shift out over the concluding stages.  Although there was no contact between the two horses, the resultant shift did cause very minor interference to occur.  However, having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race and the margin at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee does not believe that HULA BEAT would have finished ahead of AQUACADE.  On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

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