Auckland TR 23 April 2022 – R2 – ICONIC STAR and LETZBEGLAM

Evidence

Following the running of Race Number 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Stephen Marsh, alleged that horse Number 8 LETZBEGLAM placed 1st equal by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse Number 7 ICONIC STAR placed 1st equal by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings was as follows:

1st  No. 7 ICONIC STAR

1st  No. 8 LETZBEGLAM

3rd  No. 10 LORD VALENTINE

4th  No. 6 MEGA BOURBAN

After entering the Stewards room, the connections of LETZBEGLAM indicated that they wished to lodge a counter protest against ICONIC STAR alleging interference at the 150m point.

The official margin was a Deadheat.

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. Side, head-on and rear view of the films was shown.

The Adjudicative Committee determined that the best way to proceed with the protest was to hear all evidence in relation to both protests together.

The Applicant Mr Marsh, stated that ICONIC STAR shifted out slightly at the 150m mark and bumped LETZBEGLAM. He said that Mr Grylls, the Rider of ICONIC STAR, then straightened his mount. He said that following this, Mr Innes (Rider of LETZBEGLAM) changed his whip into his left hand and LETZBEGLAM commenced to lay on ICONIC STAR for 5 or 6 strides. He said that the interference resulted in ICONIC STAR being pushed off balance, and its rear end pushed sideways giving his runner no chance. Mr Marsh said there was no margin at the finish and that the interference had to have cost them at least a nose or more.

The Rider of ICONIC STAR (Mr Grylls), said just prior to the interference, he was a head behind LETZBEGLAM and starting to come back at it. He said that Mr Innes tightened him on the fence and he got very awkward, he said that without the contact he would have won the race, given the margin of a deadheat.

The Respondent Mr Innes, said that if ICONIC STAR didn’t move out at the 100m mark he would have won by a head. He said that in his opinion, the tightening had occurred after the winning post and if anything, he thought that Mr Grylls’ mount was moving out as he was moving in.

Mr Lindsay commenced his submissions by saying that the first question that needed to be asked was, did his horse get knocked sideways and the second part was, that any tightening that did happen occurred after the finish post. He concluded by saying, that in his opinion, he would have won the race had it not been for the knock LETZBEGLAM received at the 100m.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Brady Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that entering the straight, ICONIC STAR was approximately 1 length ahead of LETZBEGLAM. He said that from there, both horses raced free of interference until the 150m where ICONIC STAR shifted out slightly. He said that they then raced free of interference until 5 strides prior to the post where LETZBEGLAM made contact with ICONIC STAR. Mr Jones said that it was an abnormality of the racecourse that the running rail, just prior to the winning post, moves inwards and that Stipendiary Stewards judge movement by a runner’s position in relation to the running rail. He said it was hard to ascertain if Mr Innes had got any closer to the running rail in the final stages.

Mr Jones said that the Adjudicative Committee needed to determine whether the interference warranted a change of placings, and that the Stipendiary Stewards wouldn’t necessarily be satisfied that either protest should be upheld.

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.

Protest: LETZBEGLAM vs ICONIC STAR

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established at approximately the 120m mark, ICONIC STAR shifted out slightly and bumped LETZBEGLAM. The Adjudicative Committee determined that this bump was for 1-2 strides with light contact, and the Rider of ICONIC STAR looked to straighten his mount. The horses then raced free of interference until around 50m prior to the finish, at which point they came together again as a result of LETZBEGLAM shifting in.

Protest: ICONIC STAR vs LETZBEGLAM

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that at around the 50m mark, 5-6 strides prior to the winning post, LETZBEGLAM shifted inwards, bumped and crowded ICONIC STAR. As a result of the crowding, ICONIC STAR was knocked off balance twisting its hindquarters back towards the running rails and its head outwards. At the time of the interference, ICONIC STAR was marginally behind LETZBEGLAM, with both horses crossing the line together (deadheat). There were 3 discernible bumps during this 5-6 stride period which occurred immediately prior to the winning post.

To determine the outcome of the protests, the Adjudicative Committee was required to look at both incidents independently, but also compare the interference levels of both to ascertain if either or both horses had been disadvantaged/interfered with and was one incident of interference at a level higher than the other.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that ICONIC STAR did interfere with LETZBEGLAM at the 120m and LETZBEGLAM did interfere with the chances of ICONIC STAR at the 50m mark.

Having compared the two incidents, considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the margin (deadheat) at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, ICONIC STAR would have beaten LETZBEGLAM.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest LETZBEGLAM vs ICONIC STAR is dismissed and the protest ICONIC STAR vs LETZBEGLAM is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st  No. 7 ICONIC STAR

2nd No. 8 LETZBEGLAM

3rd  No. 10 LORD VALENTINE

4th  No. 6 MEGA BOURBAN

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