Manawatu RC 7 June 2025 – R2 – SAINT BERNARD

Background:

Following the running of Race 2, the ‘Aztech Engineering Maiden Hurdles’ an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of the 2nd placed MR FABULOUS, Ms Moki, alleged interference in the final straight. The Information was worded as follows:

‘ Protest 2nd v 1st – alleged interference in the final straight’.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Saint Bernard

2nd  Mr Fabulous

3rd   So Call Me

4th   Who’s Sam

The margin between 1st and 2nd place was 1/2 length.

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”.

Interference is defined within Rule 642(2).

Evidence:

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

Ms Moki protested on the grounds that approaching the 3rd to last fence, her line was dictated to by SAINT BERNARD. She added that approaching the 2nd to last fence, SAINT BERNARD looked to cross when not sufficiently clear, forcing her to check off her line. As a result, her mount, who had been jumping well, put in his worst jump. Once steadied, her mount jumped the last fence well. Mr Baker contended that had his horse not been forced to change ground, he would have won the race, noting that he was 1 1/2 lengths behind SAINT BERNARD, when jumping the last fence, with the margin at the line being 1/2 length.

In response, Mr Wiles asserted that Ms Moki did not, at any stage, restrain her horse in reaction to any movement by his mount. He considered he was sufficiently clear to move and did not, at any stage, cut her line. He added that in his view, the reason the Informant’s mount finished strongly, is that by moving out, MR FABULOUS had finished the race off in better ground. Ms Bambry conveyed that after SAINT BERNARD had cleared the 3rd to last fence, he was travelling significantly better than MR FABULOUS. She was of the view that Ms Moki had, in response to how her mount was travelling, looked to move out for better ground, rather than that the movement was primarily being caused by any interference.

When asked for comment, Stewards were of the view that Ms Moki had to change ground. However, they were concerned that Ms Moki had looked to take hold when SAINT BERNARD was at least 2 horse widths to her outside ie: why did she not look to pick up and hold him out. In response to this, Ms Moki commented that at that point, she did not have the momentum to do so.

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, albeit slight, was demonstrated. However, in the view of the Adjudicative Committee, same did not deny Ms Moki the opportunity to persevere on the line that she had been travelling. Upon considering submissions, the degree of interference and the point at which same took place, the Adjudicative Committee was 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.