Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 29 August 2024 – R2 – RAGING GLORY

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 2, the “CJC Stallion Tender Now Open Sprinters Maiden”, an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Rider of 5th placed PIERROGRINE, Mr Atchamah, alleged interference in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   ROBDONTESS

2nd  DONNA CHIARA

3rd   LEAR JET

4th   RAGING GLORY

5th  PIERROGRINE

The margin between 4th and 5th place 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 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”.

EVIDENCE:

Prior to hearing submissions, Stewards showed all available film identifying the alleged interference and runners involved.

Mr Atchamah protested on the grounds that at approximately the 200m, RAGING GLORY has shifted outwards, dictating DONNA CHIARA into his racing line, where he said he stopped riding, which has cost him a length and a half.

Mr Laking said at the time of PIERROGRINE being inconvenienced, he was only battling and although he finished the race off well, it would be difficult to say whether he would have beaten RAGING GLORY.

In response, Mr Hashizume said on viewing the videos, he believed Mr Atchamah wasn’t reading what was happening in front of him, but once clear, PIERROGRINE had 150m to pass him if he was good enough.

Mr Blackadder said the second horse DONNA CHIARA, bore the brunt of his horse shifting up the track and although inconvenienced, PIERROGRINE had its chance.

In providing comment, Stipendiary Steward Mark Davidson said the protest had some merit and the Stewards would leave it to the Adjudicative Committee to establish the outcome.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, 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.

The Adjudicative Committee concurs with comments of Stewards, that PIERROGRINE needed to come wider on the track and has been inconvenienced. The interference was minor and the Adjudicative Committee cannot be satisfied, had it not been for the interference, PIERROGRINE would have beaten RAGING GLORY. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the fifth horse against the forth horse is dismissed and the Judge’s placings stand.

DECISION:

The protest is dismissed. Payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the Judge’s placings was therefore approved.