Auckland TR 21 July 2024 – R3 – MUSCOVADO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 3, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Ms J Allen, the Rider of the 4th placed horse JANKA, alleged that horse number 1 MUSCOVADO (Mr L Kauri), placed 2nd, interfered with the chances of her horse.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the run down the straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 5    DOCTOR IRIS

2nd  No. 1    MUSCOVADO

3rd   No. 13  SALLY

4th   No. 7    JANKA

The official margins between the 2nd and 4th horses were, a short head (between 2nd and third) and a half a head (between 3rd and 4th). In total therefore, the margin between the 2nd and 4th horses was a long head.

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. This included the head on and back on views down the straight and the side on view.

The Applicant Ms J Allen alleged that MUSCOVADO moved out early in the run down the straight. The movement continued down the straight dictating her horse JANKA outwards, and she was hardly able to ride her horse out. Close to the line, MUSCOVADO pushed her horse out into a line behind the winner.

She considered that with a clear run, she would have finished much closer to the winner and ahead of MUSCOVADO.

Mr Wright, in support of Ms Allen, noted that she had not been able to ride her horse out. He pointed out that MUSCOVADO had its head on the side as it was laying out, while JANKA’s head was straight, and it was on a straight line. MUSCOVADO was laying out and carried JANKA with it. In his view, JANKA would have finished ahead of MUSCOVADO, with an uninterrupted run.

The Respondent Mr Kauri advised that in the run down the straight, he had stopped riding to correct his horse’s outward movement. He considered that Ms Allen was able to ride her horse out all the way down the straight and could not understand why she had not ridden it out more strongly. He considered his horse had beaten JANKA on its merits.

Mr Bell noted that Ms Allen had the whip in her right hand and when she used it, JANKA had run away (outwards), contributing to the outward movement of the two horses down the straight. He contended that JANKA never lost or changed stride, or lost any momentum in the run down the straight. Both Riders had been able to fully ride their horses out to the line.

Stipendiary Steward Ms Selvakumaran outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. She noted that the two horses entered the straight on terms. They came together at the 400 metre point when Ms Allen’s horse lay in under pressure.  MUSCOVADO had laid out during the run down the straight, but both Riders had been able to ride their horses out throughout the straight.

The horses come together again in the concluding stages (approximately 25 metres from the finish), as a result of MUSCOVADO laying outwards under pressure. However, Stewards did not consider that the coming together of the horses, was sufficient interference, given the margin involved to support the protest.

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 did consider that there had been some minor interference with the horses coming together. The initial contact was when Ms Allen’s horse laid in on Mr Kauri at the 400 metre point. Mr Kauri’s horse then did lay out during the run down the straight and the two horses came together with 25 metres from the finishing line, due to MUSCOVADO laying out on JANKA.

The Adjudicative Committee, after having taken into account the degree of the interference, the way both horses finished off the race (JANKA had not lost stride or momentum), the fact that both Riders had been able to ride their horses out to the finish, and the margin between the horses (a long head), considered that JANKA would not have finished ahead of MUSCOVADO had the interference not occurred.

On that basis, after considering all the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee, in the exercise of its discretion, dismissed the protest and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

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