Marton JC 23 September 2023 – R2 – SPENCER

ID: RIB27677

Erin Hocquard - Trainer

Mr Joe Doyle

N Moffatt and B Mainwaring

Persons Present:
Mr J Doyle, Mr N McAlistair, Mr N Parmar, Ms E Hoquard, Ms V Algar, Ms K Clapperton, Mr K and Mr A Schumacher

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Other - Protest


2nd v 1st

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Marton Jockey Club

Race Location:
Awapuni Racing Centre - 67 Racecourse Road, Awapuni, Palmerston North, 4412

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Awapuni Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Dismissed

Penalty: N/A

Following the running of Race 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr J Doyle, alleged that horse No. 5  SPENCER or its Rider, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 2 PLATINUM SIXTY SIX, placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st    No. 5    SPENCER


3rd    No. 10  MORUS

4th    No. 4    PEPEHA

The official margin between 1st and 2nd placed horses was a head.

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. Head-on, side-on, and rear views of the alleged interference were played, and the runners identified. SPENCER was in the middle of the track in the lead with PLATINUM SIXTY SIX out wide and MORUS attempting  a run between these 2 runners.

Mr Doyle, Rider of PLATINUM SIXTY SIX, said approaching the 100m mark, he was certain he was going to win until Mr Parmar moved outwards 5-6 horse widths and made contact with him close to the line. He asked the Adjudicative Committee to consider the “diminishing head margin” at the finish, stating he was ahead of the winner just after the line. Mr McAlister, representing the Trainer, agreed, saying that PLATINUM SIXTY SIX came from a long way back and there was a lot of outward movement from SPENCER.

Mr Parmar (Rider of SPENCER) did not dispute he had run outwards, but said the incident occurred close to the line and that PLATINUM SIXTY SIX had moved inwards slightly as well. Ms Hocquard was of the opinion that the interference did not make any difference to the end result.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin was asked for comment and he said there had been some contact between the 2 horses.

Reasons For Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must firstly establish whether interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

Following the examination of submissions and a thorough review of the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee reached the conclusion that SPENCER, ridden vigorously by Mr Parmar, shifted outward, spanning several horse widths, and in the moments just before the finish line, briefly made contact with PLATINUM SIXTY SIX. It is worth noting that while there was indeed some interference to PLATINUM SIXTY SIX, Mr Doyle, the Jockey, was never forced to stop riding. Furthermore, the head-on view revealed a slight inward movement by PLATINUM SIXTY SIX as well.

The 3rd placed horse, MORUS, was subject to considerable interference as it was squeezed out of a running opportunity between the leading two runners. However, no protest was lodged in this regard, likely due to the larger margins involved.

Considering the proximity of the incident to the finish line, the manner in which both horses were finishing the race, and the margin of a head, the Adjudicative Committee was unable to establish with any certainty, that free of interference, PLATINUM SIXTY SIX would have overtaken SPENCER.


Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the Decision.

Decision Date: 23/09/2023

Publish Date: 25/09/2023