Manawatu RC 29 March 2025 – R8 – LANDLOCK

Evidence

Following the running of Race 8, the Gr 1 Courtesy Ford Manawatu Sires’ Produce Stakes, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr S Ritchie, Trainer alleged that horse Number 1 LANDLOCK placed 3rd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse Number 12 TAJANA placed 4th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 6    LA DORADA

2nd  No. 5   HOSTILITY

3rd   No. 1   LANDLOCK

4th   No. 12  TAJANA

The official margin was half a head between 3rd and 4th placed horses.

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 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”.

Submissions for Decision

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee requested that Stewards show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners. There were 5 views in total.

Using drone footage, Mr Ritchie, the Trainer of TAJANA, explained that Jockey Mr Elliot, riding LANDLOCK, had initially been blocked for a run behind the leaders. Ms Spratt, aboard TAJANA, was mounting a run from behind and to the outside of LANDLOCK. Mr Elliot then angled LANDLOCK outward, moving into TAJANA’s rightful racing line. This forced TAJANA wider, put her off balance, though she regained momentum to finish just half a head behind LANDLOCK.

Ms Spratt, TAJANA’s Rider, stated that the race films clearly demonstrated LANDLOCK had taken the running line she was entitled to. She emphasized that the interference caused TAJANA to cover extra ground, but noted that once balanced, her horse closed strongly. Ms Spratt expressed confidence that, had her run not been compromised, TAJANA would have finished in third place.

Mr Elliot acknowledged moving outward, but contended that HOSTILITY, racing out wider on the track, had shifted inward, narrowing TAJANA’s running line. He emphasized that Ms Spratt had not stopped riding and had 200 metres to overtake LANDLOCK, but was unable to do so. Trainer Mr Cole supported this view, stating no physical contact occurred between the horses and that despite LANDLOCK drifting outward, TAJANA still had a clear opportunity to secure third place.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. LANDLOCK was initially blocked for a run, and Mr Elliot’s outward shift denied TAJANA her rightful unimpeded run.  Although there was not a lot of ground lost, TAJANA did lose a lot of momentum. Mr Oatham concluded there was considerable merit in the protest.

Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee 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.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and hearing submissions from all parties, the Adjudicative Committee determined that interference had occurred over the final stages of the race. At approximately the 250 metre mark, Rider Mr Elliot aboard LANDLOCK, angled his mount outward from behind the leaders, directly into the path of TAJANA. The Adjudicative Committee noted that HOSTILITY, positioned further out, maintained a straight course and was not a contributing factor in the incident. Prior to having her line taken, TAJANA was winding up for a strong finish. Mr Elliot’s manouevre interrupted this momentum and forced her over extra ground. TAJANA recovered and was making ground on LANDLOCK, to get within half a head of him at the line. It is noteworthy that TAJANA was in front of LANDLOCK just one stride after the finish.

In applying the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee considered two elements. First, it confirmed that interference had occurred when LANDLOCK took a run that rightfully belonged to TAJANA. Second, it evaluated whether this interference affected the final result. The Adjudicative Committee noted that TAJANA lost valuable momentum, due to interference at a critical stage of the race. Given how strongly TAJANA finished the race and the small margin at the line, the Adjudicative Committee concluded that TAJANA would have finished ahead of LANDLOCK, had she received a clear run.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st    No. 6    LA DORADA

2nd   No. 5   HOSTILITY

3rd   No. 12  TAJANA

4th   No. 1    LANDLOCK

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