Manawatu HRC 10 November 2025 – R6 – LORD DELMAR

Background:

Following the running of Race 6, the “Congratulations 500 Winners Stephen Doody Mobile Pace”, Stewards lodged an Information instigating a protest (5th v 4th) pursuant to Rule 869A(1)(2). Detail in respect of the Information is as follows:

‘that horse number 6 placed 4th by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 1 placed 5th by the Judge’

‘in that Lord Delmar hung in passing the 800m when improving 3 wide forcing Fredastaire (G Martin) down onto Goorambat Art (K Coppins) resulting in these two runner locking wheels and losing ground’.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Blue Chip Lou

2nd  The Next Best Thing

3rd   Gotta Elect Bill

4th   Lord Delmar

5th   Goorambat Art

The margin between 4th and 5th place was one half length.

Rule 869A(1)(2) provides:

1) For the purpose of this rule: (a) “placed horse” means a horse placed by the Judge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th; (b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race. (2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

Evidence:

Stewards presented their submission, providing available film. Entering the bottom turn near the 850 metre mark, GOORAMBAT ART was in the front half of the field against the fence, with FREDASTAIRE and LORD DELMAR to it’s outside. LORD DELMAR looked to improve and despite the efforts of Mr Hay, lay in on the two other runners causing appreciable interference and locking of wheels. Stewards estimated the incident cost both inside runners in the vicinity of six lengths. They submitted that the extent of interference was sufficient as to warrant relegation.

When questioned, both Mr Martin and Ms Coppins agreed with Steward interpretation. Mr Martin added that the interference was such that he had  to ‘grab’ the other cart to steady the horse. Mr Hay conveyed that he had no areas of concern in respect of Steward interpretation. He added he was hard on the outside rein and had attempted to prevent the actions of the horse. LORD DELMAR essentially enjoyed an unimpeded run, from the point of the incident to the finish line.

Reasons for Decision: 

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, must be satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished in front of the horse causing the interference, but for the identified incident. Upon considering all inputs ie: the location and extent of interference, the resultant margin between 4th and 5th (one half length) whilst noting that LORD DELMAR received a clear run to the line, the Adjudicative Committee determined that the protest was to be upheld.

Decision:

The protest was upheld, with LORD DELMAR (6) relegated to 5th placing and with GOORAMBAT ART (1) promoted to 4th. The payment of stakes and dividends are authorized in accordance with such decision.