Taumarunui RC 30 July 2022 – R11 – MISTRESS MINX

ID: RIB10339

Craig Grylls - Jockey

Mr S Cole - Trainer of INCA WARRIOR

Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair), Mr B Mainwaring Member

Persons Present:
Mr S Cole, Mr N Parmar - Rider of INCA WARRIOR, Mr C Grylls and Trainer connection of MISTRESS MINX, Mr B Jones - Stipendiary Steward

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement


Sixth against 5th placing

Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Taumarunui Racing Club

Race Location:
Te Rapa Racecourse - Te Rapa Road, Hamilton, 3200

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Te Rapa

Outcome: Protest Dismissed


Following the running of Race 11, the WOODS CONTRACTING 1400, Mr S Cole the Trainer of the 6th place horse INCA WARRIOR instigated a protest against Mr C Grylls (named as Respondent), the Rider of 5th place horse MISTRESS MINX alleging that MISTRESS MINX “caused interference to INCA WARRIOR in the final straight”.

The Judge’s placings were:


1st   MACUSHLA                                              (Y Kumagai)                                $17250

2nd  THE FIRST LINK                                       (K Hercock)                                 $5550

3rd  SONOFABUTCHER                                   (M Kareem)                                $2700

4th  AURORA DOLCE                                        (T Yanagida)                              $1500

5th  MISTRESS MINX                                        (C Grylls)                                     $750

6th  INCA WARRIOR                                          (W Parmar)                                $450

The margins were long head, neck, 3/4 length, 2 3/4 length, nose.

Submissions for Decision:

Approximately 250 metres from the finish, MISTRESS MINX ridden by Mr C Grylls was in or near the lead nearest the running rail, shifted off it’s line which resulted in crowding of 3 horses on its outside.  Those were ODIN POWER, SHE’S APPLES and AURORO DOLCE.  The horse INCA WARRIOR was further out, hanging in the straight earlier, had moved off the fence and moved out so as to be in the clear.  In doing so it crowded ANNA GRACE which was checked, although this had no bearing on the later incident.  INCA WARRIOR was under a vigorous ride by Mr Parmar, was slightly behind and outside AURORA DOLCE.  The 3 horses immediately outside MISTRESS MINX shifted out following the movement of MISTRESS MINX.  Mr Grylls quickly straightened his mount to relieve pressure.  Within a few strides, AURORA DOLE which was inside and slightly ahead of INCA WARRIOR, continued to move outwards and contact occurred between it and INCA WARRIOR.  That horse also moved inwards, off its line momentarily, when hard ridden by Mr Parmar.  It lost about 1 length and ran on to be a well beaten 6th, with a nose margin between it and the 5th placed horse.

Reasons for Decision:

The Protest Rule is well known, though not often “well understood” in its proper application.  Simply put, Rule 642 provides that if “interference” occurs, the Rule gives an Adjudicative Committee the power or discretion (the Rule says “may”) to relegate an “offending” horse from its placing to immediately behind a “victim” horse if in its opinion the latter horse would have finished ahead of the “offender” if such interference had not occurred.

First it has to be established that “interference” was caused by the offending horse.  And “interference” is specifically defined in Rule 642.  We could not be satisfied that all the evidence established there was “interference” as required by the definitions of that in the Rule.  That is because the incident that affected INCA WARRIOR, occurred not only because AURORA DOLCE had continued to shift out, but INCA WARRIOR contributed in part to the contact that occurred by a momentary inward movement prior to contact.  The initial shifting out by MISTRESS MINX had been quickly corrected by Mr Grylls.


As the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied to the required standard of proof (balance of probabilities) that interference in terms of the Rule had been established, the protest was dismissed.

Decision Date: 30/07/2022

Publish Date: 03/08/2022