Manawatu RC 6 April 2024 – R4 – OUTOVSTOCK

Evidence

Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). There were 2 Applicants, Mr S Weatherley (INVESTIGATE) and Mr C Grylls (MOONLIGHT MAGIC) who alleged that horse No. 7 (OUTOVSTOCK) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 3 (INVESTIGATE) placed 2nd by the Judge, and horse No. 10 (MOONLIGHT MAGIC) placed 4th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 7    OUTOVSTOCK

2nd  No. 3   INVESTIGATE

3rd   No. 1   JUST AS SHARP

4th   No. 10   MOONLIGHT MAGIC

The official margins were: 2 1/4 lengths, 1 1/2 lengths and 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 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

Both protests arose from the same incident and were heard together. The Adjudicative Committee began by inviting submissions from the connections of 4th placed horse MOONLIGHT MAGIC. Mr Grylls, the Rider, explained how he was held up for a run when mounting a run through a gap which was available to him. The gap momentarily closed as a result of OUTOVSTOCK moving inwards. Mr Grylls said he lost ground and all his momentum, but then rallied over the last 50 metres. In his opinion, the interference cost him 1st place. Ms Riddell, representing the Trainer Mr Forsman, said they believed MOONLIGHT MAGIC was denied 2nd or 3rd place and valuable black-type.

Mr Weatherley ran 2nd and stated that although the winner came from behind his horse, he was buffeted from both sides as a result of Mr McNab coming inwards. If the incident hadn’t happened, the final result would have been interesting. Mr Hills, representing the Trainer Mr Pike, said both the winner and the 2nd horse were on level terms, but Mr Weatherley was forced to stop riding as a result of interference from OUTOVSTOCK.

Mr McNab maintained that at no point did he dictate INVESTIGATE inwards. He said he made his run from behind and was only following Mr Weatherley inwards. The tightening occurred when JUST AS SHARP (most inside horse) moved slightly offline and the 2 horses between them contacted the hindquarters of his horse, resulting in as much interference to him. Despite the incident, Mr McNab stated OUTOVSTOCK was running away from the field and won by 2 1/4 lengths.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference using the overhead drone footage. He showed the eventual winner, OUTOVSTOCK, well behind the leaders prior to the 400m. There was significant interference when Mr McNab moved inwards onto runners to his inside, however OUTOVSTOCK ran past them all comfortably and won the race by a decent margin. He summarised by stating the Stewards did not support 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 hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that both MOONLIGHT MAGIC and INVESTIGATE were buffeted as a result of being squeezed between OUTOVSTOCK on the outside and JUST AS SHARP on the inside. The main cause of the gap closing was the inward movement of Mr McNab’s horse, OUTOVSTOCK.  JUST AS SHARP may have moved out a small amount, but this was not considered significant enough to be relevant.

The Adjudicative Committee looked firstly at the protest lodged by the 4th placed horse MOONLIGHT MAGIC. This runner was perhaps the worst affected and it is very likely that with a clear run, it could have gained a higher placing. The Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied however, that it would have beaten the winner who won the race very easily, with a large margin between 1st and 4th. Accordingly, the objection of 4th vs 1st is dismissed.

Turning to 2nd vs 1st; Mr Weatherley was also tightened in the incident, however having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off, and the margin of 2 1/4 lengths at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee has some doubt that INVESTIGATE would have finished ahead of OUTOVSTOCK, had that horse maintained its line and not moved inwards.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the objection of 2nd vs 1st is also  dismissed.

Decision

Accordingly, both protests are dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.