Auckland TR 7 December 2024 – R3 – PACIFICO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 3, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Mr T Pike alleged that horse No. 8 (PACIFICO) placed 3rd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 (ROEDERER) placed 4th by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred near the 100 metres in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 6 ABOUT TIME (W Kennedy)

2nd  No. 3 FINAL RETURN (C Barnes)

3rd   No. 8 PACIFICO (R Goyaram)

4^th  No. 1 ROEDERER (G Rooke)

The official margin was a head, ¾ Length and 1 ½ 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”.

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, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and turn.

The Applicant Mr Pike, stated that after turning into the home straight, the third placed PACIFICO commenced to lay out 5 to 6 horse widths.  He said that ROEDERER was commencing a run and its Rider Mr Rooke had to take evasive action (due to PACIFICO’S outward shift).  He said ROEDERER lost all momentum and was unable to get going again and would have beaten PACIFICO and run third.

Mr Rooke, the Rider of ROEDERER said that he was building momentum and was about to take a run that was available to him, when PACIFICO shifted out and he had to check his mount.  He said that he then had to “switch course” inwards and this cost him third place.

Mr Forsman, Trainer of PACIFICO, stated that interference has clearly occurred near the 100 metres.  He said that this could be attributed in part to the second horse (FINAL RETURN) shifting inwards.  He said that the beaten margin (1 ½ lengths) is too great to change the placings.

Apprentice Jockey R Goyaram, Rider of PACIFICO, said that it is clear he didn’t correct his mount.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that for much of the run in the straight, from the 300 metres, ROEDERER has had a clear run and ample opportunity to make ground on PACIFICO.  Near the 100 metres, interference has occurred when PACIFICO shifted out into the line of ROEDERER and at the same time, FINAL RETURN has shifted in.  He said that Stewards are doubtful that had the interference not occurred, ROEDERER would still not have beaten PACIFICO, given the margin between the two horses 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 ‘more probable or than not’ that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that PACIFICO shifted out several horse-widths in the run up the horse straight.  In doing so, ROEDERER was denied a run between PACIFICO and FINAL RETURN.  This in part, was due to a combination of PACIFICO’S outward shift and FINAL RETURN’S inward shift.  The chances of ROEDERER were affected, although it was never fully established into the run between PACIFICO and FINAL RETURN.  ROEDERER did suffer interference and Rider Mr Rooke did have to change ground and there was a loss of momentum for a stride or two.

For the protest to be upheld, the Adjudicative Committee must be first satisfied that interference has occurred and that any such interference was caused by of either PACIFICO, or the actions of its Rider, Mr Goyaram.  On this occasion, although interference has occurred, the Adjudicative Committee cannot be satisfied that, but for the interference, ROEDERER would have beaten PACIFICO.  Particularly given the manner that both horses finished the race off and the 1 ½ length margin between the two at the finish.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed.

Decision

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