NZ Metro TC 3 May 2024 – R1 – QUEEN KIZEN

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 1, IRT. Your Horse. Our Passion. Mobile Trot, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, alleging that QUEEN KIZEN (John Morrison), placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of CARLA PIXIE (Blair Orange), placed 2nd by the Judge, on the ground that QUEEN KIZEN shifted outwards in the run home causing interference to CARLA PIXIE.

The Judge’s placings were:

1st     7   Queen Kizen

2nd    5   Carla Pixie

3rd    1   Ya Rite Darl

4th    2   Massive Merc

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a ½ head.

Drivers, Blair Orange and John Morrison respectively, represented the connections of CARLA and QUEEN KIZEN at the Protest Hearing.

The relevant Rule is Rule 869A(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:

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, showed video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the race. He pointed out QUEEN KIZEN, driven by Mr Morrison, leading the field turning into the home straight. CARLA PIXIE, driven by Mr Orange, was racing to its outside. He confirmed that QUEEN KIZEN then shifted into the passing lane and had to be corrected. He alleged that, in the home straight, QUEEN KIZEN had shifted outwards, resulting in CARLA PIXIE being hampered. Just before the finishing line, approximately five metres he said, the two runners made wheel-on-wheel contact.

Mr Renault showed that, turning for home, there was a clear space between the sulkies of the two runners. QUEEN KIZEN shifter wider and continued to shift wider, causing interference to CARLA PIXIE. He acknowledged that the latter was hanging inwards but was, he submitted, running straight.

Mr Renault demonstrated, on the side-on video replay, that QUEEN KIZEN was a clear leader turning for home. CARLA PIXIE was making ground and had to shift wider, he alleged, and continued to make ground in the run home. If it had gone straight, it would have locked wheels, Mr Renault said. There was interference by the winner to the runner-up in the final 100 metres, he alleged. The only contact between sulkies was just short of the finishing line, he said.

Mr Orange said that his horse was hanging down the straight for the entire length of the straight. He did not have a problem with the result at the time. He believed that his runner had its chance. He was not aware, at the time, that QUEEN KIZEN had shifted out. Asked to comment on the replays, he stated that it was pretty clear that QUEEN KIZEN had moved out “a little bit”, but his own horse was running in for the entire length of the straight, he said.

Mr Morrison said that his horse had “ducked into” the passing lane and he had to correct it, to leave a clear run for the trailing runner. He submitted that there was never room for more than two horses in the passing lane and he had not run CARLA PIXIE all the way up the track, he said. He was aware of Mr Orange’s presence but believed that Mr Orange was not able to drive his horse out fully because he was having steering difficulties. He believed that Mr Orange had more than enough time to get past him in the straight. Finally, he added, the horses were 2-year-old trotters.

Mr Renault, summing up, submitted that from the 100 metres there was movement forcing Mr Orange to pull his right rein to avoid locking wheels/interference and had to continue pulling his horse out and, even though his horse was hanging in, but for that interference, Mr Orange’s horse would have won the race.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Protest Rule requires the Adjudicative Committee to determine, in the first instance, whether interference has actually taken place. If the Adjudicative Committee finds that interference has taken place, its next task is to determine whether, but for that interference, in this case, CARLA PIXIE would have beaten QUEEN KIZEN.

In determining whether CARLA PIXIE has suffered interference in this case, the Adjudicative Committee carefully viewed the video replays and listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties.

The Stewards’ allegation was that QUEEN KIZEN, in the final 100 metres of the race, had shifted wider on the track, hampering CARLA PIXIE and affecting its chances, to the extent that it cost the latter winning the race.

Mr Morrison’s evidence was that, after initially correcting his runner after it had ducked into the passing lane, its outward movement was not great and, he pointed out, there was never a run for more than two horses in the expanded lane.

Although contact is not a necessary element of interference, it is significant that there was no contact in this case until the final few metres of the race when the two sulkies came together.

The most compelling evidence was from Mr Orange, Driver of CARLA PIXIE. His evidence was that his horse had hung in for the entire length of the home straight and he was not aware that Mr Morrison had drifted out. Significantly, he said that his horse had its chance to win the race.

Taking all of the above factors into account, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied, to the required standard of a balance of probabilities, that QUEEN KIZEN had caused interference to CARLA PIXIE.

DECISION:

The protest was dismissed. It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with the Judge’s placings (above).