Matamata RC 23 March 2025 – R7 – ON THE TOWN

Evidence

Following the running of Race 7, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Mr T Pike alleged that horse No. 8 (ON THE TOWN) placed 1st  by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 6 (WIND RUSH), placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight over the concluding stages of the race.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 8  ON THE TOWN (G Grylls)

2nd  No. 6  WIND RUSH (M Cartwright)

3rd   No. 2  NEFFU (L Satherley)

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a long 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”.

Interference is defined as:

• a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
• a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
• a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

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. Four camera angles were available, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and turn.

The Applicant Mr Pike referred to the 250 metre mark using the race films.  He said at that point, WIND RUSH commenced to mount a strong run and was 2.5 lengths behind ON THE TOWN.  He said nearing the 100 metres, ON THE TOWN commenced to lay out under pressure and Rider Mr Cartwright had to take a strong hold of WIND RUSH, who lost momentum.  Mr Pike referred to a second incident near the finish, where ON THE TOWN shifted out and bumped WIND RUSH.  Mr Pike concluded by submitting that if WIND RUSH had not been hampered on two occasions, it would have won the race, given the (long head) margin.

Mr Cartwright, the Rider of WIND RUSH, using the back-on race films, said the winner has come out and made heavy contact with his mount just before the winning post.

Mr Marsh, Trainer of ON THE TOWN, using the front and side-on films, pointed out there was contact, but that occurred either right on the winning post, or slightly after.

Mr Grylls, the Rider of ON THE TOWN, used the head on film to demonstrate that for most of the run up the home straight, his mount never shifted ground.  He used the ‘mowing strip’ as a reference point.  He also said that nearing the 100 metres, Mr Cartwright changed his whip hand, which contributed to WIND RUSH laying in at that point.  He concluded by accepting that contact was made a stride before the finish.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley said the first incident near the 100 metres, was as a result of WIND RUSH laying in across the heels of ON THE TOWN.  With regards to the second incident, contact was made by ON THE TOWN, when shifting out onto WIND RUSH.  He said this occurred about 3 strides from the finish.  He said that the Adjudicative Committee would have to determine whether that incident was sufficient to change the placings.

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.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means ‘more probable than not’ that the horse interfered with, would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the race films, the Adjudicative Committee established that near the 100 metres, WIND RUSH laid in across the heels of ON THE TOWN and as a result, did lose momentum.  However, fault for that incident cannot be attributed to ON THE TOWN, or its Rider Mr Grylls.

The films clearly show that ON THE TOWN maintained a straight line until two or three strides before the finish, when it shifted out and bumped WIND RUSH, who was finishing the race strongly.

Although the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference occurred, it’s not convinced to the required standard that, but for the interference, WIND RUSH would have beaten ON THE TOWN.

Two determinative factors influenced this decision. First, the alleged interference near the 100 metres was not the fault of ON THE TOWN. Second, the interference that resulted in the bump to WIND RUSH, was so close to the finish that, given the margin, the Adjudicative Committee could not be satisfied that WIND RUSH would have overtaken and beaten ON THE TOWN, had the bump not occurred.

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

Decision

The protest is dismissed, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with its decision.