Matamata RC 24 February 2024 – R2 – TO CATCH A THIEF

Evidence

Following the running of Race 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Mr A Scott alleged that horse No. 5 (TO CATCH A THIEF) placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 (SMOKESHOW) placed 3rd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s ‘provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 2    EL VIENTO

2nd  No. 5   TO CATCH A THIEF

3rd   No. 1   SMOKESHOW

4th   No. 8   MAFIA MAMMA

The official margin was a head between first and second and a head between second and third.

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 Scott stated that after turning into the home straight, his horse (SMOKESHOW) was racing on the fence 4 or 5 lengths behind TO CATCH A THIEF.  He said that SMOKESHOW gradually made ground to the 100 metre mark and then angled off the fence and got a run with about 15 strides to the finish.  He said that TO CATCH A THIEF has taken the line of SMOKESHOW, who was checked.  He said that the interference to SMOKESHOW not only cost it second place, but also potentially the winning of the race.

Mr Hashizume, the Rider of SMOKESHOW said that it was obvious that the interference cost him second place.  He said, “I was flying through the gap and would have won, she definitely took my running line, and I received a couple of big bumps”.

Mr Richardson, Trainer of TO CATCH A THIEF, said clearly our horse has run out, but the question to be answered is “how far from the winning post did the interference occur” and “did that leave enough time for SMOKESHOW to get past” his horse.  He said on these issues, the Adjudicative Committee needs to be 100%.

Ms Spratt, the Rider of TO CATCH A THIEF, stated Mr Hashizume’s mount was laying in and he never stopped riding.  She said SMOKESHOW had the whole length of the straight to get past TO CATCH A THIEF.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said in the initial stages of the run up the straight, SMOKESHOW was inclined to lay in. He then improved from the rails into a three wide position into a run to the outside of TO CATCH A THIEF.  Near the 50 metres, he said that interference occurred, referencing the fact that TO CATCH A THIEF shifted out 3 to 4 horse widths.  He added that when TO CATCH A THIEF commenced to shift ground, it was only ½ to ¾ length ahead of SMOKESHOW and at the finish, the margin was a head.

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 or than not’ that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that when TO CATCH A THIEF shifted out into the line of SMOKESHOW, Mr Hashizume had to take significant evasive action to avoid the horse(s) of his outer, PROVENCE and DARCI’S ANGEL, who was outside of PROVENCE.

SMOKESHOW was forced on to PROVENCE, which was checked onto DARCI’S ANGEL.  They both lost considerable ground and their chances of potentially finishing in the placings were extinguished.  After contact with the horse on its outer, SMOKESHOW finished the race off strongly and took ground off TO CATCH A THIEF.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference did occur, which was in part the result of Ms Spratt not taking prompt corrective action when her mount commenced to shift outward. In these circumstances, Ms Spratt had an obligation to straighten her mount, albeit it is accepted the outward shift was abrupt and sudden.  Therefore, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that TO CATCH A THIEF (or its Rider) did interfere with the chances of SMOKESHOW and  having  considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the head margin between second and third, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, SMOKESHOW would have beaten TO CATCH A THIEF.

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

Decision

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