Avondale JC 3 June 2023 – R1 – GELDOF
ANTRIM COAST (3rd) v GELDOF (1st)
Avondale Jockey Club Inc
Avondale Racecourse - Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland, 1026
Outcome: Protest Dismissed
Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of third placed ANTRIM COAST (No. 1), alleged that the first placed GELDOF (No. 2) interfered with its chances over the concluding stages of the race.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge’s ‘provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 2 GELDOF
2nd No. 5 QUIRKY HABITS
3rd No. 1 ANTRIM COAST
4th No. 11 RIDE SALLY RIDE
The margin between first and third was a long head, and a long neck.
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”.
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. In addition, the provisions of the Protest Rule were outlined.
Submissions For Decision
The Applicant Ms Newman, Rider of the third placed ANTRIM COAST submitted that in the home straight, her mount was racing on the outside of the eventual winner, GELDOF. At 300 metres, she said that GELDOF shifted out, dictating her mount at least 4 horse widths wider on the track for at least 200 metres. She added that but for being taken wider, she would have won the race.
Mr Mildenhall, representing Marsh Racing, submitted that ANTRIM COAST was dictated out at least 4 horse widths. He said that when GELDOF shifted out, it laid all over ANTRIM COAST and it wasn’t until Mr Kennedy changed his whip hand, that Ms Newman was able to ride ANTRIM COAST out fully. He added that when GELDOF shifted, a gap opened for the second placed horse (QUIRKY HABITS), allowing that runner to finish ahead of ANTRIM COAST.
The Rider of GELDOF, Mr Kennedy, submitted that although his mount shifted out, there was never any contact between the two horses and his mount pulled away over the concluding stages.
Trainer of GELDOF, Mr Williams, submitted that both horses were 2-year-olds having their first raceday start. He said that at no stage in the run home, did Ms Newman stop riding her mount out to the finish.
Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He submitted that although GELDOF did shift out 4 or 5 horse width from the 300 metres, Ms Newman never stopped riding her mount out and from at least the 125 metres, both horses had a clear and unimpeded run to the finish. He concluded that Stewards do not support a change in placings, given the 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.
After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that GELDOF did shift out over the concluding stages. Although there was no contact between the two horses, the resultant shift did cause very minor interference to occur, in that ANTRIM COAST was forced over extra ground. Ms Newman did not stop riding her mount out and any loss of momentum was minimal.
On that basis, having considered the degree and nature of the incident, the way both horses finished the race off and the margins at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee does not believe that ANTRIM COAST would have finished ahead of GELDOF. Accordingly, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.
The protest is dismissed, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with its decision.
Decision Date: 03/06/2023
Publish Date: 06/06/2023