Avondale JC 2 April 2022 – R7 – SUPER SID

ID: RIB8415

Darren Danis - Jockey

Mr R James (Trainer of DIONYSUS)

Mr G R Jones

Persons Present:
Mr James, Ms S Spratt (Rider of DIONYSUS), Mr D Hollinshead (Trainer of SUPER SID), Mr D Danis (Rider of SUPER SID), Mr M Williamson (Senior Stipendiary Steward)

Information Number:

Decision Type:

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


Third place DIONYSUS protest against second placed SUPER SID

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Avondale Jockey Club Inc

Race Location:
Avondale Racecourse - Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland, 1026

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Avondale Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Upheld

Penalty: Protest Upheld


Following the running of Race Number 7, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr R James (Trainer of DIONYSUS) alleged that horse Number 5 SUPER SID placed 2nd  by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse Number 3 DIONYSUS placed 3rd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:


2nd  No. 5    SUPER SID

3rd   No. 3    DIONYSUS

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was 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. Head and side-on films were shown.

The Applicant Mr James stated that the race films are conclusive.  He said the damage was done when DIONYSUS was racing 1 length, directly behind SUPER SID when that horse shifted out several times.  As a result, Rider Ms Spratt had to stop riding on at least 2 or 3 occasions.    He added that in the run up the straight DIONYSUS was hampered as a result of the outward shifts by SUPER SID.

Ms Spratt, the Rider of DIONYSUS said that she had to ease off the heels of SUPER SID when looking to get to the outside of that runner.  She said that she was unable to fully ride her mount out to the finish.  She said that DIONYSUS made up considerable ground and but for the interference would have beaten SUPER SID.

Mr Hollinshead, Trainer of SUPER SID said that Ms Spratt never stopped riding and SUPER SID only moved out a “whisker”.

Mr Danis the Rider of SUPER SID said that Ms Spratt did not have to stop riding her mount and if DIONYSUS was good enough, it would have beaten his horse as it has the whole length of the straight to get past.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that prior to the 200 metres there was a run for DIONYSUS but SUPER SID has shifted out into its rightful running line.  As a result, Ms Spratt has had to angle DIONYSUS out to avoid the heels of SUPER SID.   Mr Williamson further pointed out that near the 150 metres SUPER SID has again shifted out under pressure and inconvenienced DIONYSUS.  Further, SUPER SID shifted out again near the winning post.  Mr Williamson estimated that SUPER SID shifted out 6 to 8 horse widths.  He concluded that Stewards believe the protest 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.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that SUPER SID shifted out on at least 2 or 3 occasions, each time inconveniencing DIONYSUS who was endeavouring to secure a clear run.  The race films indicate that close to the winning post DIONYSUS was also bumped by SUPER SID.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that SUPER SID did interfere with the chances of DIONYSUS, and  having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the nose margin between the two horses at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is firmly of the opinion that, free of interference, DIONYSUS would have beaten SUPER SID.  Mr Danis had an obligation on at least two occasions to stop riding and straighten his mount, but he failed to do so.  It is also clear that DIONYSUS’ momentum was impacted as a consequence of the interference.

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


The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:


2nd  No. 3   DIONYSUS

3rd   No. 5   SUPER SID

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.

Decision Date: 02/04/2022

Publish Date: 04/04/2022