Riccarton Park – Amberley 5 March 2025 – R1 – MONTAUK

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr Nayton Mitchell, alleged that horse Number 10 MONTAUK, placed 2nd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse Number 5 LATENIGHT GALAXY, placed 3rd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st    2   MANZAPPEAL

2nd  10  MONTAUK

3rd    5   LATENIGHT GALAXY

4th   11  OUR SALLYANN

The official margin between second and third was a half a head.

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”.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In Thoroughbred Racing, this standard is reached when the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied, on the basis of credible evidence, that the requirements of the Protest Rule have been met.

EVIDENCE:

Mrs Algar had Mr Oatham identify both LATENIGHT GALAXY and MONTAUK and show the alleged interference on four different video angles.

Mr May said between the 350m and the 200m, he was forced to coast on his horse because of the shift outwards by MONTAUK. He said had he been able to have a clear run, he would have finished 2nd, or perhaps even won the race. He said he had insufficient room to ride his horse out until the last 200m of the race.

Mr Mitchell said he thought his horse was restricted because of the movement of MONTAUK, who he said had also influenced the other runners either side of his horse.

Miss Hemi asked for the front and side videos to be split, to demonstrate her shifting ground outwards towards the better going. She pointed to the side on video, to show she was at least 2 lengths clear of horses, as she shifted to the outside of the track. She said Mr May has ridden his horse aggressively to the finish and in no way, has she checked LATENIGHT GALAXY.

Ms Rae said the only contact or interference, was between the runners in line with LATENIGHT GALAXY at the top of the straight and she said her horse was always well clear of those runners.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs Algar gave the Stewards’ interpretation of the protest, being that the shift outwards by MONTAUK was within the Rules.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Protest Rule demands two factors to be established to a standard which an Adjudicative Committee finds credible and reasonable. Firstly, did interference occur, and secondly, did such interference have a bearing on the result of the race.

Given video angles can be deceiving in some instances, in this incident, it is very clear MONTAUK has shifted across the front of the field well clear of runners and not checked any horse in doing so.

DECISION:

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorized the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.