Auckland TR 5 April 2025 – R5 – ERIN GO BRAGH

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Class A Rider Mr M Cartwright alleged that horse No. 3 (ERIN GO BRAGH) placed 1st  by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 (PENMAN), placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight over the concluding stages of the race.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 3 ERIN GO BRAGH (T NEWMAN)

2nd  No. 1  PENMAN (M Cartwright)

3rd   No. 11  DRAMATIC MISS (T Mitchell)

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a head.

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. Three camera angles were shown, namely head-on, side-on, and back.

The Applicant Mr Cartwright referred to the 50 metre mark using the race films.  He said at that point, the lead horse, ERIN GO BRAGH shifted out into the running line of ALTARI who was dictated on to his mount.  He said that he became unbalanced and sat up for a stride and was only beaten by a head.  He said that he would have beaten the winner if that had not occurred.

Mr S O’Connor, representing the connections of PENMAN, said that when PENMAN received a bump, it was “completely put off stride” and but for that occurring, would have finished over the top of ERIN GO BRAGH and won the race.

Ms Newman, the Rider of ERIN GO BRAGH, said that although she shifted into the line of ALTARI, Mr Cartwright never stopped riding his mount out to the finish and had every chance to win the race.

Mr A Tomkinson, representing the connections of ERIN GO BRAGH, said that “quite clearly there was a big shift onto the Te Akau horse” (ALTARI), but both Riders kept riding to the end, and he thought it was a fair result.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham said that clearly interference has been caused to PENMAN, by the eventual winner.  He said that PENMAN had been crowded and forced two horses wider on the track and although Mr Cartwright didn’t stop riding his mount out, he did have to alter his riding style, due to becoming unbalanced.  Mr Oatham said that at the 100 metres, PENMAN was two lengths behind ERIN GO BRAGH, but by the 50 metres, just prior to the interference, was only one length behind.  After losing momentum, PENMAN finished the race off to be only a head behind the winner.  Mr Oatham said that on that basis, the protest does have 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 ‘more probable than not’ that the horse interfered with, would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the race films, the Adjudicative Committee established that ERIN GO BRAGH commended to shift out from the 100 metres.  Ms Newman initially attempted belated corrective active after hampering ATARI, but after straightening briefly, ERIN GO BRAGH shifted abruptly.  This caused ALTARI to be dictated on to PENMAN, who was finishing the race off strongly.

Two determinative factors influenced the decision. First, at the 100 metres, PENMAN was two lengths behind ERIN GO BRAGH and between the 100 and 50 metres, had made up one length.  Second, after receiving interference, PENMAN’S Rider rebalanced and finished the race off strongly, to be only a head behind at the finish.

The Adjudicative Committee is of no doubt that had PENMAN had an unimpeded run to the line, it would have won the race.  On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

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