R Tauranga 13 November 2021 – R6 – STAND TALL

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Following the running of Race 6, The Connor Warren Insurance Brokers Open, an Information was presented by Mr M Cameron, the Rider of MARRONI placed second by the Judge, lodging a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1) to see that the first placed horse, STAND TALL ridden by Ms B Rogerson, be placed immediately after, his mount MARRONI.

Rule 642(1) is well known.  Where relevant it 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 had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with.”

Judge’s Placings:

1st:     STAND TALL

2nd:    MARRONI

3rd:     BRANDO

4th:      HEZTHEWONFORUS

Margin between 1st and 2nd was 3/4 length.

EVIDENCE:

Mr Cameron, using the race films as aids, said that at the 22 metre point when he was racing outside STAND TALL, NEW YORK JAZZ, and HEZTHEWONFORUS, the former horse ridden by Ms B Rogerson angled outwards and severely contacted the 2 horses inside MARRONI, forcing them onto that horse which lost momentum, was out “at least 2 lengths” and finished strongly.  He said his horse would have won but for the interference caused by STAND TALL.

Mr Sharrock’s submission was that whilst he agreed there had been interference (jostling in terms of the Rule), MARRONI had a clear run to the line for over 200 metres and was not making ground on STAND TALL over the last 20-50 metres which was kicking again, and MARRONI would not have finished ahead of it.

Mr Davidson demonstrated the incident by reference to the race films (both head and side on) and said (which was obvious) there had been clear interference by STAND TALL on each of the placegetters.  He said whether MARRONI would have finished ahead of STAND TALL was the requisite issue in terms of Rule 642(1) and that was a matter for the Committee’s judgment.

CONCLUSIONS:

In dismissing the protest the Committee advised the parties that:

a) There was significant interference through STAND TALL’s continued outward movement which resulted in jostling to and hampering of MARRONI.

b) The interference affected MARRONI’s chance but not to the extent that, but for it, that horse would have finished ahead of STAND TALL.  Whilst MARRONI finished strongly after the jostling occurred, it was being held by STAND TALL in the last 50 metres and because of that and the margin of 3/4 length, the Committee was not comfortably satisfied that, in terms of the Rule 642(1) MARRONI “would” have finished ahead of STAND TALL.