Auckland TR 6 April 2024 – R6 – UDERZO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Mr C McNab (representing the connections of RUDYARD)  alleged that horse No. 7 (UDERZO) placed 1st =  by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse No. 4 (RUDYARD) 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. 4 RUDYARD

1st   No. 5 UDERZO

3rd  No. 6 DEVASTATE

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.

The Applicant Mr McNab, stated that given the dead-heat margin, his horse (RUDYARD) should be promoted to first place.  He said that Mr Parmar shifted in from the 300 metres and placed pressure on his horse.  He said Mr Parmar had difficulty in keeping his horse straight.  If he had kept a straight line, my horse would have won.

Ms Sutherland said that her horse (RUDYARD) was dictated onto from the 200 metres.

Mr Scott said that UDERZO came from at least 1½ lengths from behind RUDYARD.  He accepted that there was some interference by his horse, but did not believe that it cost RUDYARD the winning of the race outright.  He added that Mr Parmar stopped riding close to the finish line and he also tried to straighten UDERZO, and had he kept riding, there would have been a margin in our favour.

The Rider of UDERZO, Mr Parmar, confirmed that he stopped riding forward when his mount shifted in. He also said that he did not cost RUDYARD the opportunity to win the race.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that nearing the 200 metres, RUDYARD did shift out slightly, but that had no impact on the result.  Inside the 200 metres, UDERZO has dictated on to DEVASTATE, who in turn, has shifted into RUDYARD.  Again, approximately two to three strides prior to the finish, UDERZO has again dictated onto DEVASTATE, who has shifted onto the hindquarters of RUDYARD, thus affecting its momentum.  Mr Jones concluded that interference has occurred and given the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee will have to weigh up the fact that it was a dead-heat margin at the finish.

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 UDERZO shifted inward on two occasions, whilst Mr Parmar continued to ride forward with the whip. UDERZO dictated DEVASTATE onto RUDYARD twice.  On the second occasion, RUDYARD received a slight bump.

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 determining factor in the outcome. UDERZO did shift in on to DEVASTATE, who made slight contact with RUDYARD’S hindquarters.  Such contact, however minimal, is therefore a factor.  The Adjudicative Committee cannot weigh to a nicety, the exact ground the bump may have cost RUDYARD as a result of that contact, but it is comfortably satisfied, given the margin, that any lost ground is sufficient enough for a change of placings.  In addition, although Mr Parmar, the Rider of UDERZO changed his whip from left to right hand when his mount commenced to lay in, he did continue to ride forward whilst his mount shift inwards several horse-widths.  He was on one rein for several strides, and he did take some corrective action, but he needed to be more assertive to avoid dictating onto DEVASTATE.

Interference has occurred, which was the direct result of this.  Accordingly, given the margin and the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that but for the interference, and had Mr Parmar taken corrective action when he should have, RUDYARD would have beaten UDERZO outright.

Conclusion

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