Avondale JC 4 June 2022 – R6 – SO GORGEOUS

Evidence

Following the running of Race Number 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642 (1).

The Applicant, Ms Tegan Newman, Rider of the second (equal) placed horse, CANNSEA CLEARLY, alleged that the first placed horse, SO GORGEOUS, interfered with her mount’s chances in the final straight.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight near the 200 metre mark.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 7 SO GORGEOUS

2nd = No. 14 CANNSEA CLEARLY

2nd = No.  5 MAGDALA

The official margin was a nose and 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”.

For the purpose of the Protest Rule 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 involved in the Protest. In doing so Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley pointed out SO GORGEOUS (T Yanagida) who was racing on the outside of CANNSEA CLEARLY (T Newman) in the run up the straight. The head-on film was most helpful.

The participants advised the Adjudicative Committee that they understood the requirements of the Protest Rule.

The Applicant Ms Newman, referring to the head on film, stated that nearing the 200 metres Mr Yanagida’s mount has shifted in, touched her horse, which was dictated for a few strides and resulted in a loss of momentum and this, she submitted, cost her the winning of the race.

The Trainer of CANNSEA CLEARLY Mr Carson’s stated there’s not a lot in it, but there is a nose margin at the finish between the two horses, and there was a loss of momentum.

The Respondent  Mr Yanagida stated that there was always a gap for CANNSEA CLEARLY and he did not believe that the horses actually touched.

The Co-Trainer of SO GORGEOUS Ms Gerard, using the films, stated that near the top of the straight CANNSEA CLEARLY shifted out and dictated SO GORGEOUS wider as it was making its run.  She said that Mr Yanagida did have to correct his mount because it did lay in slightly, but there was no interference.  She added that in the run to the finish Ms Newman never stopped riding her mount and SO GORGEOUS always had the better of CANNSEA CLEARLY.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Williamson outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that SO GORGEOUS was a difficult ride for Mr Yanagida as it did lay in slightly in the run up the straight. He said that SO GORGEOUS made slight contact with CANNSEA CLEARLY nearing the 200-metre mark, but it did not cost that horse the opportunity to win the race.  Mr Williamson concluded that Stewards do not support the protest.

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 films the Adjudicative Committee established that although SO GORGEOUS did lay in slightly on to CANNSEA CLEARLY near the 200-metre mark, and both horses brushed very lightly, there was no significant interference, nor was any loss of momentum apparent on the films. Although racing close together, both horses then had an unimpeded run to the finish line.  And in the opinion of the Adjudicative Committee both horses had their opportunity to win the race.

The Adjudicative Committee is therefore satisfied that having considered the degree and nature of the interference, which at best was very minor; the way both horses finished the race off and the nose margin at the finish, it is doubtful that CANNSEA CLEARLY would have finished ahead of SO GORGEOUS.  On that basis, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.