Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 16 May 2024 – R5 – CARAVELLA

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Class A Rider Jasmine Fawcett, Rider of 2nd placed horse DEAR OH DEAR, alleged that horse No. 8 CARAVELLA, placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 7 DEAR OH DEAR, placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st     No. 8      CARAVELLA

2nd    No. 7      DEAR OH DEAR

3rd     No. 9      SORCHA

4th     No. 6      LA BELLA NERA

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a long 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”.

Submissions for Decision

The Applicant Miss Fawcett, showed the films and pointed out CARAVELLA ridden by Mr Asano, racing mid-track and DEAR OH DEAR ridden by Miss Fawcett, racing to the inside of CARAVELLA approaching the 100m. She showed that CARAVELLA shifted into her line near the 100m and she had to stop riding for a stride or two before resuming to ride DEAR OH DEAR out again. She stated that this interference, in her opinion, cost her the win in the race. Mrs Collins agreed with Miss Fawcett and stated that without the interference, she believed that DEAR OH DEAR  would have won the race.

Rider Mr Asano, stated that CARAVELLA was affected by the strong gusts of wind across the track, which caused his mount to shift inwards. He said that he grabbed hold of his horse and changed the whip over to the left hand in order to straighten CARAVELLA. Mr Asano also stated that Miss Fawcett did not stop riding her mount out over the concluding stages and any interference was minimal. Mr Walker agreed with Mr Asano and concurred that Miss Fawcett did not stop riding her mount out and had every chance over the concluding stages.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference and stated that CARAVELLA had come from 2 lengths behind DEAR OH DEAR in the home straight and was moving past that horse when CARAVELLA shifted in, probably due to the strong cross winds. He added that both horses were affected by the wind, but stated that any interference that occurred to DEAR OH DEAR by CARAVELLA, was minimal.

Reasons or 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 was satisfied that CARAVELLA shifted ground inwards into the running line of DEAR OH DEAR near the 100m. This Adjudicative Committee found that the interference suffered to DEAR OH DEAR was minimal and deemed it to be an inconvenience at best. Taking into consideration all factors including the official margin of a long head, the fact that CARAVELLA had come from 2 lengths behind DEAR OH DEAR in the straight and was improving past that horse when the incident occurred, this Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, DEAR OH DEAR would not have beaten CARAVELLA ,despite the alleged interference.

On that basis, the protest is dismissed.

Decision

Accordingly, 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.