NZ Metro TC 23 October 2024 – R3 – MASSIVE MERC

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 3, Dancinginthedark M (USA) Mobile Trot for 2-year-old trotters, an Information by way of a protest was filed by Open Driver, Ben Hope, Driver of ODINA, placed 2nd by the Judge, against MASSIVE MERC (Alan Clark), placed 1st by the Judge, on the ground that MASSIVE MERC shifted outwards in the run home causing interference to ODINA.

The Judge’s official placings were as follows:

1st   5  Massive Merc

2nd  6  Odina

3rd   3  Starstruck

4th   7  Natives Cullerdamoon

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

Rule 869(A) provides:

(2)     When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

EVIDENCE:

The hearing began with Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, showing video replays (“Trackside” and head-on views) of the final 200 metres of the race. He pointed out the two runners concerned – MASSIVE MERC, driven by Mr Clark, the leader turning into the final straight, and ODINA, driven by Mr Hope, which had been trailing that runner. Those two runners had drawn clear of the rest of the field.

Mr Hope submitted that, with the leader keeping running out, he was unable to balance his runner up and “go for her”. It was only in the last 50-100 metres that he had been able to do so, he said. His filly had then “hit the line strong”. He was unable to activate the hood, he said. He believed that he would have “potentially won” the race. He stressed that his runner was a 2-year-old.

Mr Clark said that, at no stage in the run home, was there any sudden movement outwards. He believed that, in the entire run home, his runner would have shifted out no more than a metre. Mr Hope had the whole length of the straight to pass him either on the inside or the outside. He did not carry Mr Hope’s runner out any further than it already was, he said. He did not believe that he had caused any interference to Mr Hope’s runner. He submitted that at no stage was ODINA going to beat him. It had drawn alongside him about 50 metres from the finish and had come to the end of its run, and was running out. It was not relevant that Mr Hope’s runner was rough-gaited and had to be held together, he submitted.

Mr Williams was asked by the Adjudicative Committee for his assessment of the alleged interference. He said that, at the turn into the straight, Mr Hope was approximately 2 to 2½ behind MASSIVE MERC. Stewards did not accept Mr Clark’s estimate of the distance his horse had shifted out. Mr Hope’s runner had hit the line strongly, Mr Williams said. Mr Hope had never been able to balance his horse up and activate gear. The movement of Mr Clark’s runner had denied Mr Hope the opportunity of winning the race, he said.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Protest Rule requires the Adjudicative Committee to be satisfied as to two matters. Firstly, in this particular case, that MASSIVE MERC caused interference to ODINA and, secondly, if satisfied that interference has been caused, that ODINA would have finished ahead of MASSIVE MERC, but for that interference.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that, turning into the final straight, MASSIVE MERC was leading and was some 2 lengths clear of ODINA. MASSIVE MERC maintained a clear advantage over ODINA, while shifting out some distance (more than the one metre suggested by Mr Clark) as it progressed down the straight. Mr Hope had the opportunity to go to the inside of MASSIVE MERC but, rather, elected to follow MASSIVE MERC out and continued to issue a challenge to the outside of MASSIVE MERC, when there was clear racing room to the inside of MASSIVE MERC.

It was only inside the final 150 metres that ODINA finally drew up alongside the sulky wheel of MASSIVE MERC, so any possible interference could only have taken place after that point. Any further outwards movement from MASSIVE MERC from that point was minimal, and Mr Hope had elected to steer wide of that runner. There was certainly never any point at which the two horses or their sulkies came into contact, although contact is not necessary to prove interference. Furthermore, prior to the 150 metres, Mr Hope had a clear opportunity to activate the removeable deafeners.

It was the Adjudicative Committee’s finding that Mr Hope was able to urge his runner at all relevant times and that, in the closing stages of the race, MASSIVE MERC was comfortably holding its lead. Mr Hope stated that he was reluctant to drive his horse out fully, but that was a judgement that he made.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that ODINA suffered little or no interference in the run home, and certainly not to the extent that its chances were affected, and it had every opportunity to win the race. The Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that it would have beaten MASSIVE MERC.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed.

It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the Judge’s official placings as above.