Matamata RC 19 April 2023 – R9 – DIOMEDES
WISHEART and ORDER TO CHARGE
Matamata Racing Club
Matamata Racecourse - 7555 State Highway 27, R D 3, Matamata, 3440
Outcome: Protest Dismissed
Following the running of Race 9, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of 3rd placed DIOMEDES, R Elliot, alleged that both the first and second placed horses, namely WISHEART (J Kamaruddin) and ORDER TO CHARGE (M McNab) interfered with the chances of his mount over the concluding stages of the race.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight near the 50 metres.
The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 8 WISHEART
2nd No. 10 ORDER TO CHARGE
3rd No. 2 DIOMEDES
The official margin was a nose and a short 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, at the request of the Adjudicative Committee, Stipendiary Steward Mr G Stewart showed all available race films of the alleged interference and identified the runners involved in the Protest.
The key elements of the Protest Rule were outlined to the parties.
For expediency reasons, all the evidence was heard in relation to the alleged interference together, but deliberations concerning the merits of each protest were conducted as a separate decision-making exercise.
Mr Elliot, The Rider of third placed DIOMEDES, stated that from the top of the home straight, his mount maintained a straight line. He said that he “copped interference from the inside horse (WISHEART), who came out into his line and the outside horse (ORDER TO CHARGE), who from the 50 metres, came in on him”. He said that he had to stand up approaching the line and this cost him any chance of winning the race.
Mr Pertab, Trainer of DIOMEDES, said that his horse was checked 50 metres from the finish line. The outside horse (ORDER TO CHARGE) shifted in, and the inside horse (WISHEART) came out.
Mr McNab, the Rider of second placed ORDER TO CHARGE, said that his mount had come from behind the other two horses. He said that when he got up alongside DIOMEDES, his mount did lay in slightly and he quickly straightened. At the same time, he received a bump from the two inside horses, and it cost his mount the opportunity to win the race.
Ms Gerard, the Trainer of ORDER TO CHARGE, said that her horse had finished on from behind the other two and received pressure from the inside. She said that her horse’s hind end was hit by DIOMEDES, and “it was put off stride”. She said that the DIOMEDES had every chance.
Apprentice Rider Mr Kamaruddin, the Rider of the race winner WISHEART, stated that his mount came out, but it was close to the winning post and that both second and third horses would not have been able to beat his mount.
Mr Richardson, the Trainer of WISHEART, said that his horse kept a straight line – he referenced the mowing strip to make this point. He said that there was no way his horse was going to be beaten and the incident complained of, was close to the winning post.
Stipendiary Steward Mr Simpson outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that Stewards agree that DIOMEDES did suffer some interference, but they would not be comfortably satisfied that it would have beaten either ORDER TO CHARGE or WISHEART.
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 nearing the 50-metre mark, DIOMEDES was racing between ORDER TO CHARGE on its outer and WISHEART, on its inner. In the run to the winning post, DIOMEDES is placed into restrictive room as a result of ORDER TO CHARGE laying in slightly, and WISHEART shifting out. Mr Elliot did have to take hold of his mount and he stood up over the final 10 metres of the race. At the time of the incident, WISHEART and ORDER TO CHARGE appeared to have the measure of DIOMEDES.
Protest 3rd v 2nd
The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that although DIOMEDES did suffer interference, it cannot be solely attributed to ORDER TO CHARGE. Therefore, having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the margin between second and third (short neck), the Adjudicative Committee has some doubt that DIOMEDES would have finished ahead of ORDER TO CHARGE. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the third horse against the second horse is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.
Protest 3rd v 1st
The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that although DIOMEDES suffered interference as a result of WISHEART shifting out close to the winning post, but after taking into account the degree and nature of the interference, the way the horses finished the race off and the margin between first and third (nose and a short neck), the Adjudicative Committee has some doubt that DIOMEDES would have finished ahead of WISHEART had the interference not occurred. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the third horse against the first horse is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.
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: 19/04/2023
Publish Date: 20/04/2023