Egmont RC 4 August 2024 – R1 – PIPER’S SON

Background:

Following the running of Race 1, the “Norwood Hawera Maiden”, an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of 2nd placed VERARDINO, Mr Hashizume, alleged interference in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Piper’s Son

2nd  Verardino

3rd   Crafty Colin

4th   Takes Time

The margin between 1st and 2nd place was 1/2 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 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”.

Evidence:

Prior to hearing submissions, Stewards showed all available film identifying the alleged interference and runners involved.

Mr Hashizume protested on the grounds that in the straight, his mount was improving and he wanted to pull the stick, but was prevented in doing so by Ms Hercock ‘bumping’ him 3 or 4 times. He contended that if he was able to use his whip, he would have won the race. Ms Purser reiterated these comments.

In response, Ms Hercock commented that early in the straight, Mr Hashizume’s mount had been laying in on her, which had prevented her from using her whip beyond a slap to the shoulder. She did concede that inside the last 50 metres, her horse did roll out slightly, but the horses had not touched. Mr Dravitski remained of the view that the horses did not bump and that towards the line, his horse was pulling away.

In providing comment, Senior Stipendiary Steward N Goodwin noted that it is not unusual for horses to race in tight quarters. He was of the view that PIPER’S SON was always holding the second horse and that VERARDINO had it’s opportunity to get past, but was unable to do so.

Reasons for Decision:

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, 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.

Rule 642(2)(b) provides definition in respect of interference. In application to this protest, interference is established through jostling.

The Adjudicative Committee concurs with comments of Stewards, that the second placed horse had it’s opportunity to pass the first placed horse, but was unable to do so. The interference was minor, with both horses contributing. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the second horse against the first horse is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision:

The protest is dismissed. Payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the Judge’s placings was therefore approved.