Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 2 August 2025 – R9 – BRADMAN

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 9, THE WINNING EDGE PRESENTATIONS 128th WINTER CUP, an Information by way of a Protest was instigated by Jockey Kavish Chowdhoory, the Rider of OUR JUMALA, placed 4th by the Judge, alleging interference over the concluding stages by the 3rd placed horse, BRADMAN (Bruno Queiroz).

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st    CHASE

2nd   WHO KNOWS

3rd    BRADMAN

4th    OUR JUMALA

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 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”.

Interference is defined within Rule 642(2).

All participants stated they understood the Protest Rule, hence it was not read at the hearing.

Mr Oatham stated the official margin between 3rd and 4th was  1 & 1/4 lengths. He had Stipendiary Steward, Mr Mark Davidson, identify the horses involved and then play all available videos, including drone footage.

EVIDENCE:

Mr Chowdhoory used the video to show BRADMAN racing against the rail and himself (OUR JUMALA) approximately 5 horses off the fence. He said he has kept his horse straight throughout the run home and, at the 150 metres, Mr Queiroz (BRADMAN) has ridden out into his line, causing him to stop riding his mount, which cost him 2 or 3 lengths.

Mr Lemmy Douglas, for the connections of OUR JUMALA, said their horse was finishing beside WHO KNOWS, the favourite for the race and, had it not been for the interference, he believed OUR JUMALA could have finished off the race and finished in third place.

Mr Queiroz, the Rider of BRADMAN, said he tried several times to straighten his mount, but he was always on the wrong leg. He said he would have won the race, if his horse had run straight.

Mr Bergerson, the Trainer of BRADMAN, said 1 & 1/4 lengths was a lot to make up in the last 75 to 100 metres of the race on a heavy track. He said he didn’t think OUR JUMALA was ever going good enough to get past his horse, even considering the interference.

Mr Oatham was given the opportunity to give the Stewards’ interpretation of the incident. He said BRADMAN has shifted a considerable distance away from the rail and, initially, has dictated OUR JUMALA outwards until the 125 metres, where Mr Chowdhoory has had to take hold to avoid heels. Mr Oatham said Mr Chowdhoory has stopped riding for 4 or 5 strides, costing him a length and momentum.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, must firstly be satisfied that interference occurred and, secondly, if interference is established, that the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred. Rule 642(2)(b) provides definition in respect of interference.

It is blatantly obvious that the shift outwards from BRADMAN, impeded the finish of OUR JUMALA. All the placed horses were being hard-ridden over the last 150 metres of the race on a testing surface. Mr Chowdhoory has stopped riding for several strides and, once balanced, has plugged on to finish 1 and 1/4 lengths from 3rd placing. Mr Chowdhoory believes he lost 2 to 3 lengths, the Stewards’ opinion is one length, the discrepancy is expected in these circumstances.

The Adjudicative Committee, in determining whether OUR JUMALA would have beaten BRADMAN if the interference had not occurred, has the difficult task of judging the incalculable factor of momentum, together with its observations of how the two horses finished the race.

Upon considering submissions, the point at which the interference took place, the degree of interference, the margin between the two horses at the finish and how they finished the race, the Adjudicative Committee could not, on the balance of probabilities, be sufficiently satisfied that OUR JUMALA would have beaten BRADMAN.

DECISION:

Accordingly, the protest was dismissed. Payment of dividends and stake money, in accordance with the Judge’s placings, was therefore ordered.