Levin RC 19 December 2024 – R2 – SPECIAL SAKURA

Background:

Following the running of Race 2, the “Happy Hire 3yo Maiden”, an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of 2nd placed ALBAROSSA, Mr Lerner alleged interference in the final straight. The Information was worded as follows:

‘Interference in the home straight’

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Special Sakura

2nd  Albarossa

3rd  Furiosa

4th   Port Chalmer

The margin between 1st and 2nd place was a 1-1/4 lengths.

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”.

The Rule was read prior to commencement of the hearing

Evidence:

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

Mr Lerner protested on the grounds that in the straight, his mount was finishing strongly, that SPECIAL SAKURA had moved out significantly and dictated his line. His mount was a big horse, having his first start and had become intimidated by the horse to his inside. Given the movement, he was unable to use his whip and that had cost him the race. Mr Gray contended that throughout the incident, Mr Dell was able to continue to ride out his horse, something Mr Lerner was unable to do.

Mr Dell admitted that his mount had moved, was on the wrong leg and when corrected, put a length on the horse to his outside. He also contended that by the finish line, he had looked to ease his mount. This was endorsed by Ms Millar.

In providing comment, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin noted that ALBAROSSA was competitive and although not making significant ground at the time of interference, was eating into the lead of SPECIAL SAKURA. He added that once SPECIAL SAKURA had got onto the right leg, it gained an advantage over ALBAROSSA.

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. Based upon the definition and film viewed, the Adjudicative Committee determined that interference was evident.

In determining the outcome of the Protest, the Adjudicative Committee referenced 3 critical points namely, how the horses were travelling just prior, the extent of the interference and how ultimately each horse finished off the race. Certainly, interference was marked, however the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that ALBAROSSA was at any stage, travelling better than SPECIAL SAKURA, even when acknowledging that the finish of this horse, was affected by such interference. The Adjudicative Committee was therefore unable to form the opinion that the horse so interfered with, would have finished ahead of the horse causing such interference, had such not occurred. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the second horse against the first horse was dismissed.

Decision:

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