Otago RC 26 May 2023 – R6 – STOP YELLING

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to r 642(1). The Applicant, Mr Oatham, alleged that horse No. 3 (STOP YELLING) placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 2 (BUDAI) placed second by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final 100 metres.

The Judge’s provisional placings were:

1st       3 STOP YELLING

2nd      2 BUDAI

3rd       9 PANDDE

4th       5 BACK HUT

The official margin between first and second was a nose.

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

The Applicant, Mr Oatham, using the side-on and head-on race films, showed that BUDAI was making a run down the outside of the track in the home straight. When the horse commenced its run, it was some distance behind STOP YELLING, which was racing outside the leader and challenging for the lead. BUDAI made good ground, and in the last 75 metres STOP YELLING began to shift wider on the track. Eventually, STOP YELLING came into contact with BUDAI on two occasions in quick succession. The degree of contact was such that BUDAI was unbalanced and shifted sideways wider on the track. BUDAI lost its line of running and momentum, which Mr Oatham estimated to have cost the horse at least a neck and perhaps as much as half a length. After the contact, which he stated was around the 50 metre mark, BUDAI had rebalanced and had run on over the concluding stages to finish only a nose behind STOP YELLING.

The Rider of BUDAI, Mr Khetoo, stated that he had lost momentum and it had cost him the winning of the race. Mr Tyler, Trainer of BUDAI, said the horse had picked itself up and pulled the margin back to a nose at the line. He believed the interference had cost BUDAI half a length to a neck.

The Respondent, Ms White, Trainer of STOP YELLING, stated there was not much contact and she believed it had not cost BUDAI the ground that Mr Oatham and Mr Tyler had said. When questioned by the Adjudicative Committee, she agreed that BUDAI had been pushed wider on the track. She added that STOP YELLING had always been in front of BUDAI.

Mr Jogoo, Rider of STOP YELLING, said there was just the one point of contact. It was barely a touch and BUDAI had not become unbalanced.

Reasons For Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must first establish that interference occurred. Secondly, if interference is established, that the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred. Thirdly, the decision to relegate is discretionary, in that the Rule provides that the Adjudicative Committee may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that BUDAI made up good ground on STOP YELLING all the way up the home straight. BUDAI suffered interference from about the 75 metres when STOP YELLING started to shift out into the running line of BUDAI. At about the 50-metre mark there is contact. The horses brush for a couple of strides and BUDAI is shifted sideways. BUDAI losses momentum as a consequence and the horse does well to pick itself up and run STOP YELLING to a nose margin at the line.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that STOP YELLING did interfere with the chances of BUDAI. Considering the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the nose margin at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that BUDAI would have finished ahead of STOP YELLING. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

Amended placings are:

1st       2 BUDAI

2nd      3 STOP YELLING

3rd       9 PANDDE

4th        5 BACK HUT

Payment of dividends and stake money is authorised in accordance with this decision.