Rangiora HRC 5 May 2024 – R7 – DOUBLE QUICK

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 7, McConchie Builders Limited F & M Mobile Pace, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Licensed Junior Driver, Seth Hill, alleging that DOUBLE QUICK (Blair Orange), placed 2nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of JOAN’S RISING STAR (Seth Hill), placed 3rd by the Judge, on the ground that DOUBLE QUICK shifted inwards in the run home, resulting in the horse locking wheels with JOAN’S RISING STAR, which was checked.

The Judge’s placings were:

1st    4   Kairaki Confidential

2nd   8   Double Quick

3rd   1   Joan’s Rising Star

4th   2   Touch N Go

The official margin between 2nd and 3rd was a head.

Drivers, Seth Hill and Blair Orange respectively, represented the connections of JOAN’S RISING STAR and DOUBLE QUICK at the Protest Hearing.

Mr Hill, a Junior Driver, was asked by the Adjudicative Committee if he required the assistance of a Trainer or Senior Driver. He indicated that he did not.

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:

At the commencement of the hearing, the Stewards showed, without comment, the head-on and side-on video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the race. Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, pointed out the runners concerned – DOUBLE QUICK, driven by Mr Orange, the leader as the field turned for home and JOAN’S RISING STAR, driven by Mr Hill, in the trail behind that runner. At the finishing line, DOUBLE QUICK finished in 2nd placing and JOAN’S RISING STAR finished 3rd, the margin between the two runners being a head.

Mr Hill referred to the head-on replay and said that he had entered the passing lane and there was room. He said that he had not shifted out and, if he had done so, then only very slightly. Mr Orange had definitely shifted in “more severe if anything”, resulting in the locking of wheels about 50 metres from the finishing line. He thought he could have won, but would definitely have finished 2nd.

Mr Orange said that Mr Hill was entitled to the passing lane. He submitted that Mr Hill’s runner had run out since taking the passing lane. He pointed out that Mr Hill’s horse’s head had been turned inwards prior to contact, meaning it was still running out, while his own horse had moved in marginally. There was still room for Mr Hill’s runner on the inside, he said.

Mr Orange said that his own horse’s movement had caught him by surprise, but Mr Hill’s horse was running out. Mr Hill had come from behind him, with full use of the passing lane available. Mr Hill had run in sharply just before the contact, meaning it was running in again. Mr Hill had come from behind him and locked wheels, while his own runner was still parallel with the top marker. Mr Hill’s run had never been impeded at any stage in the run home, he submitted. Mr Orange said that he had never moved down into the passing lane

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, confirmed Mr Orange’s statement that he had moved in. He believed that Mr Hill had not moved significantly at all and it started to run out because it was attempting to resist the movement of Mr Orange’s horse. The wheels locked approximately 50 metres from the finish and remained locked. He submitted that Mr Hill may have had an advantage over Mr Orange at that point, and the movement from Mr Orange’s runner caused Mr Hill to lose that advantage. In conclusion, Mr Williams said that Stewards believed that, had the interference not taken place, Mr Hill’s runner would have finished 2nd.

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, JOAN’S RISING STAR would have beaten DOUBLE QUICK.

In determining whether JOAN’S RISING STAR has suffered interference in this case, the Adjudicative Committee carefully viewed the video replays and listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties.

Mr Orange has led into the home straight. Mr Hill, who had trailed, took the passing lane which became available to him. From that point, there was always a clear gap for Mr Hill and, the Adjudicative Committee finds, he kept a straight line at all times. The Adjudicative Committee rejects Mr Orange’s evidence that Mr Hill’s runner had been running out.

It was curious that Mr Orange seemed to suggest that, because there was room in the passing lane, Mr Hill was required to make use of all of it, even when Mr Orange shifted inwards. Mr Hill had a clear run, and was entitled to that run to the finishing line. The Adjudicative Committee finds that Mr Orange’s runner shifted in, under a drive from Mr Orange, into the line of Mr Hill’s runner. The locking of wheels was the result of that and amounted to clear interference to the latter.

Having found that DOUBLE QUICK caused interference to JOAN’S RISING STAR, the Adjudicative Committee then needed to determine whether, but for that interference, JOAN’S RISING STAR would have finished ahead of DOUBLE QUICK. This was simple. The video replay showed that JOAN’S RISING STAR had been finishing fast, better than DOUBLE QUICK, and had actually gone ahead of DOUBLE QUICK prior to the locking of wheels, but could not continue to progress once the wheels had locked. The margin between the two runners at the finish was a head. In the absence of that interference, which the Adjudicative Committee has found taken place, the Adjudicative Committee is comfortably satisfied that JOAN’S RISING STAR would have finished ahead of DOUBLE QUICK.

DECISION:

The protest was upheld and DOUBLE QUICK was relegated from 2nd to 3rd placing. Consequent upon the relegation, the amended result of the race is as follows:

1st    4   Kairaki Confidential

2nd   1   Joan’s Rising Star

3rd   8   Double Quick

4th   2   Touch N Go

It was ordered that dividends and stakes be paid in accordance with that amended result.