Auckland TR 28 October 2023 – R8 – IMPENDABELLE

ID: RIB29012

Tony Pike - Trainer

Andrew Scott - Trainer

Stewart Ching (Chair), Mike Godber

Persons Present:
Brady Jones - Stipendiary Steward, Tony Pike - Trainer, Kozzi Asano - Jockey, Andrew Scott - Trainer, Joe Doyle - Jockey

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement - Protest rule


4th placed MOLLY BLOOM against 1st placed IMPENDABELLE

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Auckland Thoroughbred Racing

Race Location:
Pukekohe Park - 222/250 Manukau Road, Pukekohe Hill, Pukekohe, 2120

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Pukekohe Park

Outcome: Protest Dismissed

Penalty: N/A


Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Andrew Scott, Trainer of 4th placed MOLLY BLOOM, alleged that horse No. 2 IMPENDABELLE, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 9 MOLLY BLOOM, placed 4th by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred over the concluding stages.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:


2nd No. 8 MARY SHAN

3rd  No. 5 TULSI

4th  No. 9 MOLLY BLOOM

The official margins between 1st and 4th were a neck, a neck, 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, Andrew Scott, stated that at the 200m, MOLLY BLOOM was 4 lengths behind IMPENDABELLE and improving quickly. He said that at the 100m, MOLLY BLOOM was only 2 to 3 lengths behind IMPENDABELLE and still gaining on IMPENDABELLE. Mr Scott said that at the 50m, IMPENDABELLE began to shift in onto MOLLY BLOOM and that was when the interference began. He stated that IMPENDABELLE interfered with MOLLY BLOOM over the final 50m and with the rapid way that MOLLY BLOOM was finishing, and but the interference suffered, his filly would have beaten IMPENDABELLE.

The Rider of  MOLLY BLOOM, Joe Doyle, stated that MOLLY BLOOM was stopped in her tracks due to the interference and it had cost MOLLY BLOOM the win.

The Respondent, Trainer Tony Pike, stated that the interference occurred very close to the finish line and with the margins being a neck, a neck and a nose, MOLLY BLOOM finished about 3/4 of a length behind IMPENDABELLE at the line. He said that the inside horse made initial contact with MOLLY BLOOM and that was where the majority of the interference came from, not IMPENDABELLE.

The Rider of IMPENDABELLE, Kozzi Asano, stated that the filly was racing greenly and was impacted by the erratic performance of LUBERON, who ran to the outside of the track half way down the straight. He said that apart from his filly racing greenly, he went to the line well and despite the interference suffered to MOLLY BLOOM, would always have beaten that horse.

Stipendiary Steward Brady Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that the interference occurred close to the winning post, approximately 4 strides from the line. Mr Jones stated that MOLLY BLOOM was some distance behind IMPENDABELLE at the 200m and did make up ground. He said the initial contact for MOLLY BLOOM was with the inside horse, as she was being dictated in by IMPENDABELLE at that point. He added the margins of a neck, a neck and a nose plus the close proximity to the post where the interference took place, put doubt into the merits of the protest.

Reasons for Decision

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that interference did occur to MOLLY BLOOM when racing between MARY SHAN and IMPENDABELLE over the concluding stages and that interference, the Adjudicative Committee calculated, was 3-4 strides off the post. The Adjudicative Committee also established that contact to MOLLY BLOOM was made initially with MARY SHAN, when MARY BLOOM was dictated in and placed in restricted room by IMPENDABELLE.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that IMPENDABELLE did interfere with the chances of MOLLY BLOOM, however having considered the margins at the line being a neck, a neck and a nose, the nature of the interference, the proximity to the line where the interference occurred which it found to be 3-4 strides off the post, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that, but for the interference suffered to 4th placed MOLLY BLOOM by 1st placed IMPENDABELLE, MOLLY BLOOM would have beaten IMPENDABELLE to the finish line.  On that basis, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.


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.

Decision Date: 28/10/2023

Publish Date: 30/10/2023