Rangitikei RC 15 September 2024 – R6 – WONDERBOY

Evidence

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Ms K Hercock, Rider of Horse No. 5, alleged that horse No. 1 (WONDERBOY) placed 2nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 5 (MANZOR BLUE), placed 3rd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred near the 850 metres.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 3   OMEGA BOY

2nd No.1    WONDERBOY

3rd No. 5    MANZOR BLUE

4th No. 2    JAZZ WITH DRAGON

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

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

Before hearing the parties’ submissions, the Adjudicative Committee requested that the Stewards present all available race footage of the alleged interference and identify the horses involved. Mr Goodwin, representing the Stewards, indicated that the interference occurred towards the end of the back straight as the field approached the bend.

The Applicant, Ms Hercock, stated that she was racing on the fence with OMEGA BOY (ridden by L Kauri) alongside her, when Mr Chowdhoory’s mount shifted in twice, with the second shift occurring on the corner, causing her horse to “bounce off the rail.” Ms Hercock argued that this interference stopped her in her tracks and, in her view, cost her approximately 4-5 lengths.

Mr Chowdhoory, the Rider of WONDERBOY, contended that his horse beat MANZOR BLUE fairly. He argued that Ms Hercock had ample time over the length of the straight to overtake him, but failed to do so.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin, presented the Stewards’ interpretation of the interference. He noted that MANZOR BLUE lost 3-4 lengths as a result of WONDERBOY shifting in, but then made up considerable ground in the home straight. The Stewards were of the opinion that despite the interference, MANZOR BLUE had the opportunity to pass WONDERBOY, but did not do so.

Reasons for Decision

Under the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must first determine whether interference occurred, and if so, whether the horse that suffered the interference would have finished ahead of the other, had the interference not taken place.

The available footage from the back straight and side-on cameras, clearly showed that WONDERBOY shifted in sharply on the bend, forcing OMEGA BOY into the path of MANZOR BLUE, which lost significant ground near the rail. The Adjudicative Committee concluded that interference did occur, though notes that relegation is not automatic in such instances.

Next, the Adjudicative Committee assessed the impact of the interference on MANZOR BLUE. After the incident, Ms Hercock regained momentum and began making up ground on WONDERBOY down the home straight. Initially MANZOR BLUE was closing quickly, but the margin between the two horses remained unchanged over the final stages, and WONDERBOY appeared to fight back as MANZOR BLUE approached.

The determination of interference and its impact is not a straightforward mathematical comparison between the margin at the finish and the ground lost in the interference, particularly so when the incident occurred 850m from the finish. The earlier in the race the interference occurs, the more possibilities there are for other factors to have influenced the outcome.

The protest certainly had merit.  The Adjudicative Committee considered the distance from the finish when the interference occurred, the recovery of MANZOR BLUE, and the fact that the gap between the horses did not decrease further closer to the line.  This led the Adjudicative Committee to conclude that, even without the interference, there was some doubt that the third-placed horse would have overtaken the second-placed horse.

The protest is therefore dismissed.

Decision

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.