Auckland TR 23 February 2025 – R3 – DEADLY DESIRE

Evidence

Following the running of Race 3, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant T Mitchell, alleged that horse No. 8 DEADLY DESIRE, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 2 NOT USUAL PICK, placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 8  DEADLY DESIRE

2nd  No. 2  NOT USUAL PICK

3rd   No. 3   MODELO

The official margin was a nose.

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.

The Applicant T Mitchell, said about 10 metres from the finish, DEADLY DESIRE made contact with her runner, her back ended shifted and she believes she would have won, should that not have occurred.

The Trainer of NOT USUAL PICK, S Logan, said that her horse changed leg as a result of the interference and given the small margin, the interference made a difference to her horse winning.

The Rider of DEADLY DESIRE (C Grylls), said at the 10m mark, his horse gave NOT USUAL PICK a slight bump, but this didn’t constitute interference. He said that T Mitchell did not stop riding and the key factor was that he had come from well behind NOT USUAL PICK and was taking ground off it the whole time. He said that beyond reasonable doubt, he was always going to win the race.

Mr Scott said that DEADLY DESIRE had come from a long way behind NOT USUAL PICK. Both horses had received equal opportunity to win the race. He added that NOT USUAL PICK had come out to meet DEADLY DESIRE. He said that “under the Rule, would that contact have made a difference to the placings”.  Mr Scott inferred that it was his belief that a change of placings shouldn’t occur.

Stipendiary Steward Mr A Dooley outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said initially there was a gap between both horses and then there was slight contact 1-2 strides before the post and the Adjudicative Committee needs to be satisfied that the contact was sufficient to warrant a change of placings. He said the Stewards would say the protest had merit, but the decision lies with the Adjudicative Committee.

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 2-3 strides from the post, slight contact occurred between DEADLY DESIRE and NOT USUAL PICK; while this would constitute a level of interference, it was minimal.

The Adjudicative Committee observed that both Riders rode their mounts strongly to the line and neither horse appeared to suffer any loss of momentum due to the contact. It was apparent that DEADLY DESIRE was finishing over the top of NOT USUAL PICK, and further to this, while the Adjudicative Committee acknowledges that DEADLY DESIRE did shift in slightly prior to contact, it couldn’t discount the fact that NOT USUAL PICK may have shifted out (albeit slightly) the stride immediately prior to contact being made.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that contact did occur, however having considered the degree and nature of the contact, the way both horses finished the race off and the margins at the finish of the race, the Adjudicative Committee is not convinced that NOT USUAL PICK would have finished ahead of  DEADLY DESIRE.  On that basis, in the exercise of its discretion, the protest is dismissed, 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 dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.