Taranaki RI 16 August 2025 – R8 – OUR LADY BROOKE

Evidence

Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Ms K Hercock (Rider of TAI)  alleged that horse No. 5 (OUR LADY BROOKE) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 4 (TAI) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 5    OUR LADY BROOKE

2nd  No. 4    TAI

3rd   No. 6    KEEN ON BUBBLES

4th   No. 14   DOROTHY’S DAUGHTER

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

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

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee requested that Stewards show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners.

The Applicant Ms Hercock stated that approaching the 100m, OUR LADY BROOKE rolled in on TAI, forcing her to stop riding for 2 strides. She said TAI was a big green horse and although OUR LADY BROOKE got ahead of her by a long neck, TAI fought back to get to within a nose at the finish. With a clear run, Ms Hercock said she would have won the race.

Mr O’Malley, accepted that OUR LADY BROOKE had shifted inward, but argued there was no actual contact between the horses. He contended that Ms Hercock was not forced to stop riding.

Mr Moxthwa acknowledged his mount was hanging in, despite his attempts to correct this, stating that he used the whip in his left hand to counteract the movement.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said TAI did not receive a clear run to the line, with Rider Ms Hercock forced to take evasive action, due to the inward movement of OUR LADY BROOKE. The protest decision was not easy, but the nose margin was significant.

Reasons for 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 considering the evidence and reviewing the race films, the Adjudicative Committee found that OUR LADY BROOKE shifted inwards approaching the 100-metre mark. This inward movement initially impeded DOJAKATA, and then Mr Mxothwa continued across, causing TAI to veer away, which clearly affected Ms Hercock’s ability to ride her horse out. It is important to note, that physical contact between runners, is not required for interference to be established. The video evidence confirmed TAI was forced to alter its line, to avoid contact with OUR LADY BROOKE.

The side on video showed TAI fight on and get within a nose of OUR LADY BROOKE, in a photo finish.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the movement of OUR LADY BROOKE, did interfere with the chances of TAI. Having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the close margin of a nose at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, TAI would have beaten OUR LADY BROOKE.

On that basis, in the exercise of its discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st   No. 4   TAI

2nd  No. 5   OUR LADY BROOKE

3rd   No. 6   KEEN ON BUBBLES

4th   No. 14  DOROTHY’S DAUGHTER

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.