R Tauranga 12 January 2024 – R8 – JOLTED

ID: RIB37584

Ryan Elliot - Jockey, Ken Kelso - Trainer

Ms Elen Nicholas (Apprentice Jockey), with Ms Chloe Cumming (Trainer)

Mr M Godber

Persons Present:
Mrs L Selvakumaran (Stipendiary Steward Chairing the meeting), Mr B Jones (Senior Stipendiary Steward), Ms E Nicholas (Apprentice Jockey supported by Mr N Harris), Ms Chloe Cumming (Trainer of Pahi Lass), Mr R Elliot (Jockey), Mr K Kelso (Trainer of JOLTED)

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Other - Protest rule


The Rider and Trainer of the 4th placed horse protested against the winner

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Racing Tauranga Inc

Race Location:
Tauranga Racecourse - 1383 Cameron Road, Greerton, Tauranga,

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Tauranga Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Dismissed

Penalty: N/A


Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Ms E Nicholas (Rider of PAHI LASS) alleged that horse No. 12 (JOLTED), placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of her mount, horse No. 13 (PAHI LASS), placed 4th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 12 JOLTED

2nd  No.  1 EXTORTION

3rd   No.  9 MONDAY MELODY

4th   No. 13 PAHI LASS

The official margins were a long neck, a nose and a long neck. In total, the official margin between the 4th horse and the first horse was 0.8 of a length.

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 Adjudicative Committee explained the requirements of the Protest Rule, that firstly, interference has to be proven and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

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.

The Applicant (Ms Nicholas) stated that her horse PAHI LASS, had lost balance when JOLTED had shifted out early in the run down the home straight. She had had to change hands with the whip as she took the run inside JOLTED. As a result of the movement of JOLTED across her line, her horse had lost momentum. She considered she lost at least a length and without the interference, PAHI LASS would have won the race.

Ms Cumming explained that PAHI LASS was a big ranging mare and when she lost momentum, Ms Nicholas had to switch her whip hand. She supported Ms Nicholas’ contention that the horse had lost at least a length.

The Respondent Mr Elliot said his horse JOLTED had rolled out while getting balanced on straightening. He did not believe that Ms Nicholas had had to stop riding PAHI LASS due to JOLTED moving out. While Ms Nicholas had changed hands with the whip and shifted to an inside run, she had always had one hand on the reins and the other on the whip and had not had to ease her horse or stop riding it out.

Mr Kelso supported Mr Elliot’s comments, emphasising that Ms Nicholas never stopped riding her horse out.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Selvakumaran outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. The Stewards considered that while Ms Nicholas’ horse PAHI LASS does move out under pressure from JOLTED, ridden by Mr Elliot, they would describe the pressure as being inconvenient and there was, in their view, no actual contact between the horses. Furthermore, from approximately the 200 metre mark, the two horses had an unimpeded run to the finish.

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.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that the level of interference was minimal. While Ms Nicholas had to change her whip hand when directing PAHI LASS to an inside run, she had not had to stop riding her horse. The two horses had not made contact, and both had an unimpeded run to the finishing line from approximately the 200 metre mark.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that JOLTED did inconvenience and cause minor interfere with the chances of PAHI LASS. However, having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the fact that there was no contact between the horses, both horses had a clear run to the line from the 200 metre mark, the way both horses finished the race off and the margin (0.8 of a length) at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee considered that PAHI LASS would not have finished ahead of JOLTED.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.

Decision Date: 12/01/2024

Publish Date: 15/01/2024