Levin RC 30 November 2025 – R7 – AMMIRATI

SUMMARY:

Following the running of Race 7, the Group 3 “JENNIAN HOMES WELLINGTON STAKES”, Mr Bidlake, a Part Owner and Trainer of “TULSA KING” which was placed 2nd by the Judge, lodged a protest under Rule 642(1) against the horse “AMMIRATI”, placed 1st by the Judge.

DECISION:

After hearing evidence from the Riders of the two horses, Mr Bidlake and viewing the several race films, the Adjudicative Committee dismissed the protest.

Its reasons are now set out.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The race took a dramatic and unusual turn of events inside the last 50 metres.  “ROAD TO PARIS”, ridden by Mr M Hashizume and trained by Messrs R James and R Wellwood, was in command in the lead and destined to finish first.  “AMMIRATI” ridden by Mr Cartwright, was second and although chasing hard, could not catch “ROAD TO PARIS”.  “TULSA KING” was finishing openly wide out, still in arrears of “AMMIRATI”.  Suddenly and without warning, “ROAD TO PARIS” shied outwards, probably in fright when seeing the winning post and signage, although the exact cause of its action is not relevant, as it clearly took Mr Hashizume by surprise so as to be dislodged.

Thereafter, the sudden quick and severe outward move of “ROAD TO PARIS” forced “AMMIRATI” outwards as Mr Cartwright had to take evasive action.  This, in turn, comprised a sudden outward movement into the path of “TULSA KING”, which eventually was second and came close to winning as the margin was a nose.

The Judge’s placings, and first two margins were:

1st      AMMIRATI – nose margin

2nd     TULSA KING – nose margin

3rd      LANDMAN

4th      BELZONI

Although the wayward actions of “ROAD TO PARIS” clearly comprised interference, there can obviously be no protest under the Rule unless it is caused by a placed horse.  So the issue was whether the winner “AMMIRATI”, “causes interference within the meaning of Rule 642” to
“TULSA KING”.  And the Rule speaks of “interference” (as a noun) as well as “the horse interfered with” (as a verb).  Clearly, “TULSA KING” was hampered (interfered with) by the movement outwards by “AMMIRATI”, but that does not without more comprise “interference” as required by the Rule.  Crossing another horse, or jostling with another horse may be “interference”.  But, and crucially in this race, Rule 642(2)(iii) contains a definition of “interference” [the noun] as:

“(iii)  a horse itself or its Rider, in any way interfering [the verb] with another horse …. unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse ….”

The cause of the events which led to the hampering of “TULSA KING’ was entirely the sudden movement of “ROAD TO PARIS”.  Mr Cartwright on “AMMIRATI” had no option but to, when forced away, endeavour to avoid.  The provision in subclause (iii) of the Rule is designed to provide for precisely this type of event.

So “interference” as defined in the Rule, did not occur to “TULSA KING”, although as a factorial matter, its chances were affected through being “hampered” in its finishing momentum.  As a consequence, consideration of the relegation provision in Rule 642(1) is not required.