Auckland TR 23 February 2025 – R5 – ESPERIMENTO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant T Harris alleged that horse No. 13 ESPERIMENTO, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 BANNEN, 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. 13   ESPERIMENTO

2nd  No. 1    BANNEN

3rd   No. 15  WHO ROX THE HOUSE

The official margin was ¾ length.

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 (representing the connections) T Harris, said that from around the 100m, Mr Lawson-Carroll’s mount shifted inwards, crowding BANNEN and his Rider Mr McNab, was unable to get at him, or get his full momentum into the horse and after the post, he was 2 strides in front. He alleged that ESPERIMENTO had also affected the chances of the 3rd horse, WHO ROX THE HOUSE.

Mr McNab, Rider of BANNEN, said he had established a run to the inside of ESPERIMENTO, before it commenced to crowd him. He said his horse was inexperienced and he had to turn its head to the side, as a result of the crowding. He said the crowding occurred for the last 100m of the race and he was never able to get his horse up to full momentum. Mr McNab estimated that this cost him about 1 length and he would have won, had this not occurred.

Mr Clotworthy, Trainer of ESPERIMENTO, said that at the time of the alleged interference, there was ample room to the inside of ESPERIMENTO for BANNEN. He said that WHO ROX THE HOUSE and BANNEN, were both contesting the space inside of ESPERIMENTO and inferred this was why BANNEN was in tight quarters. He indicated that he thought placings should stand.

The Rider of ESPERIMENTO (A Lawson-Carroll), said that both BANNEN and WHO ROX THE HOUSE were attempting the same gap; he said that while he did move in slightly, there was always room for BANNEN to his inside. He said ESPERIMENTO was clearing away from them at the finish line.

Stipendiary Steward Mr A Dooley outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of incident. He said that ESPERIMENTO did shift in passing the 100m, but Mr Lawson-Carroll did straighten his mount. He said with a margin of ¾ length, had interference occurred, the Stewards couldn’t support 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 ESPERIMENTO shifted inwards, momentarily at approximately the 100m. At this point, there was room for BANNEN to angle inwards and improve to its inside. As BANNEN looked to establish the run inside ESPERIMENTO, WHO ROX THE HOUSE looked to angle off the rail and attempt to take the same gap, with both horses being placed in tight quarters.

ESPERIMENTO then maintained a straight line throughout the run home, with BANNEN and WHO ROX THE HOUSE to his inside. It was difficult to establish that any interference that may have occurred to BANNEN, was as a result of ESPERIMENTO’S actions.

After listening to submissions and viewing the video evidence, the Adjudicative Committee could not be satisfied that ESPERIMENTO had caused sufficient or any interference to BANNEN, that would warrant a change of placings and the protest was dismissed.

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.