Auckland TR 26 December 2024 – R7 – MIDNIGHT EDITION

Evidence

Following the running of Race 7, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Mr A Forsman (Trainer of YALDI)  alleged that horse number 9 (MIDNIGHT EDITION) placed 1st =  by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse number 8 (YALDI) placed 1st = 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 YALDI

1st  No. 9 MIDNIGHT EDITION

3rd  No. 3 CHECKMATE

The official margin was a dead heat.

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”.

Interference is defined as:

• a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
• a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
• a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

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. Four camera angles were available and shown, namely head-on, side-on, back straight, and rear-on overhead drone.

The Applicant Mr Forsman raised two objections.  First, he alleged interference at the top of the straight when YALDI was racing behind MIDNIGHT EDITION and was held for a run, for a few strides.  His second concern was that nearing the 50 metre mark, Mr Cartwright has changed his whip hand, his mount shifted out and made contact with YALDI.

Mr McNab, the Rider of YALDI, stated that when Mr Cartwright “pulled his whip”, he has dictated YALDI out when he was about to get past MIDNIGHT EDITION.  He said he made contact by bumping his horse and given the dead heat margin, it was enough to have cost him the outright win.

Mr Wallbank, the Trainer of MIDNIGHT EDITION, said his horse kept a straight line and “YALDI came in and squeezed my horse”.

Mr Cartwright, the Rider of MIDNIGHT EDITION, said that it was a “bob of the head” finish, and my horse had a strong kick. He said, “once I switched the whip over, there was a minor connection”.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said there was no merit in the first objection raised by Mr Forsman – which was in relation to the alleged interference early in the run home. He said there was merit with regards to the second issue raised, relating to interference in the last 50 metres.  He said that Mr Cartwright shifted his whip to his right and MIDNIGHT EDITION shifted out 1½ to 2 horse-widths, which dictated YALDI wider and there was contact at that point.  This unbalanced and impeded YALDI.  He said Stewards believe that the second issue has merit.

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.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means it is the opinion of the Adjudicative Committee that it is ‘more probable or likely than not’, that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

Decision

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee upheld the protest, changed the placings and authorised payment of dividends in accordance with the decision.

Reasons

The evidence established that nearing the 50 metre mark, MIDNIGHT EDITION shifted outwards and dictated YALDI wider, when mounting a run from behind that horse.  It is of significance that YALDI was making up ground, estimated to be about ¾ L, on MIDNIGHT EDITION from the 100 metre mark.  There was a small bump as a result of MIDNIGHT EDITION’S outward shift, and there was a slight loss of momentum that inevitably would have affected YALDI’S chances.

Where the margin is very close, in this case a dead heat, any interference, resulting in a loss of balance or momentum, will inevitably be a persuasive factor when weighing up the evidence and determining the outcome. Although the outward shift was about two horse widths and the contact was minimal, the Adjudicative Committee is firmly of the view that such interference is sufficient, in these circumstances, to justify a change of placing, given there was no margin between the two horses.

Therefore, but for the interference, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion YALDI would have beaten MIDNIGHT EDITION.

Conclusion

The protest is upheld, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with its decision.