Canterbury JC 30 June 2022 – R3 – GLOBAL BEAUTY

ID: RIB9863

Brandon May - Jockey

Rohan Mudhoo, Jockey

Russell McKenzie

Persons Present:
The Applicant, the Respondent, Mark Davidson (Steward), Veronica Algar (Steward), Mike McCann (Trainer) and Varma Ramhit (Trainer)

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement


Protest dismissed

Animal Name:
Global Beauty


Race Date:

Race Club:
Canterbury Jockey Club

Race Location:
Riccarton Park - 165 Racecourse Road, Christchurch,

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Riccarton Park, Christchurch

Outcome: Protest Dismissed


Following the running of Race 3, NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race, an Information was filed instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rohan Mudhoo, Rider of FOLKTALE, placed 2nd by the Judge, alleged that  GLOBAL BEAUTY (Brandon May), placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of FOLKTALE.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st     2   Global Beauty

2nd   1   Folktale

3rd    3  Mia Sorella

4th    4  Page Three

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short head.

Rule 642 provides:

(1)   If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of 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 the Stewards show all available video replays of the alleged interference and identify the runners. Mr Davidson had Stipendiary Steward, Veronica Algar, point out the runners. She pointed out GLOBAL BEAUTY, ridden by Mr May, 3-wide and taking the lead with 300 metres to run and FOLKTALE, ridden by Mr Mudhoo, commencing a run behind and to the outside of GLOBAL BEAUTY. Mr Davidson said that, from that point,  there was a clear shift up the track by GLOBAL BEAUTY, but there was no contact with FOLKTALE, he said. Mr Mudhoo had come from behind, he said.

Mr Mudhoo said that GLOBAL BEAUTY had “come at him” three times and dictated him out wider. His horse had blinkers on, he said. Mr McCann, Trainer of FOLKTALE, was given the opportunity to comment but declined to do so at that stage.

Mr May said that Mr Mudhoo was coming to him at an angle as his mount “stepped out”. From the 200 metres, Mr Mudhoo’s mount had drifted in, he submitted. At no stage did he believe that he interfered with the runner-up, he said.

Mr McCann then wished to comment on the video replay. He suggested that Mr May had clearly shifted out, more so than FOLKTALE had shifted in.  Mr May accepted that he had shifted out, but submitted that he had not stopped Mr Mudhoo’s momentum.

Stipendiary Steward, Mark Davidson, asked to give his views, said that the shift had come from GLOBAL BEAUTY. There had been no contact but there had been some dictation. The two runners got close, then again late in the race, he said. The protest did have some merit, he said.


In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must firstly establish whether interference occurred and, secondly, if interference is established, whether the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner had such interference not occurred.

GLOBAL BEAUTY’s outwards shift was gradual. There was also a slight inwards movement from FOLKTALE, prior to those two horses coming close together briefly at about the 200 metres. From that point, with no contact from GLOBAL BEAUTY, FOLKTALE also ran out and there was a clear space between the two runners until just short of the finishing line when the former shifted out, again without making contact. At no stage in the concluding stages did Mr Mudhoo have to stop riding his mount out, or did FOLKTALE appear to lose its momentum. The margin at the finish of a short head was quite narrow, but the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that the winner was holding the runner-up at bay over the final stages. The latter had the length of the straight to run the winner down. There was some minor interference but the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that, but for that interference, the result would have been different.

Having regard to all of those matters, in the exercise of its discretion, the protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand.


The protest is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand.

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

Decision Date: 30/06/2022

Publish Date: 04/07/2022