Waikato BOP H 7 January 2024 – R5 – KASHKEEPER

Protest GOD DAM vs KASHKEEPER

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 5, the Applicant, Senior Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay, filed an Information instigating a protest pursuant to r 869A(2) alleging that KASHKEEPER, placed first by the Judge, interfered with the chances of 2nd placed GOD DAM, alleging interference over the concluding stages.

The provisional placings  were:

1st   No 5   KASHKEEPER

2nd  No 7   GOD DAM

3rd  No 2   SHAKE A LEG

4th  No 1   CLASSIC GOLD

The official margin was a ½ head.

Rule 869A(2) reads:

869A(2)  When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

The Adjudicative Committee outlined the process for the hearing and Mr Mulcay read the Protest Rule.

Mr Blanchard, on behalf of the connections of the affected horse, re-confirmed that it was not the connections that had instigated the protest, but the Stipendiary Stewards.

Submissions for Decision:

Using the race films relating to the concluding stages of the race in the home straight, Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay demonstrated the video and identified the affected horses. He said that Mr Dickie’s drive did shift out “marginally” in the home straight and as the Driver of KASHKEEPER, he had an obligation to keep his drive straight in the final straight. He said that inside the 50m there was contact, there was no locking of wheels, but the stays may have locked, and there was a potential loss of momentum to GOD DAM, which may have affected the outcome of the race. He asked the Adjudicative Committee to consider whether the interference was solely caused by KASHKEEPER, or whether GOD DAM had contributed by shifting inwards.

GOD DAM’s Driver Mr P Ferguson said he was trailing behind KASHKEEPER, came out beside him, but couldn’t get past him.

GOD DAM’s Trainer Mr Blanchard said that obviously Mr Dickie has run out 1-1.5 cart widths – we had our show and it was apparent that the runners touched wheels.

KASHKEEPER’s Driver Mr J Dickie said his horse had run off the corner a little, and the sulky stays of the two runners have made contact late in the race. He said that prior to the contact, he hadn’t run out and if anything, GOD DAM has come down a fraction and initiated the contact.

Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay submitted that the Home Straight Regulations determined that a runner must maintain a straight course and commenced to read the Home Straight Regulations for the benefit of all parties. He said that it was the Stewards’ opinion that the interference suffered to GOD DAM determined that the placings should be changed.

Reasons for Decision:

The Adjudicative Committee has to be satisfied that in the first instance, interference has occurred, and secondly, but not for that interference, the affected runner would have beaten the horse it was protesting against.

To establish the merits of the protest, the Adjudicative Committee first reviewed the footage in relation to the shifting of ground by KASHKEEPER in the home straight and whether this would be considered as interference. While reviewing the films, it was evident that Mr Dickie’s drive had shifted outwards in the home straight to a minor degree. This shift occurred as the trailing runner (GOD DAM) was looking to angle off its back. GOD DAM was not impeded, nor its progress hindered during his movement and Mr Ferguson had been able to drive his horse out strongly to the finish line. On that basis, it was hard to establish whether interference had actually occurred, in relation to shifting of ground.

In relation to the contact of the wheels close to the finish line, it was clear that a degree of interference had occurred. After review of the films, it was apparent that at around the 35m mark, GOD DAM had shifted down for two strides immediately prior to initiation of the contact and was more culpable than KASHKEEPER in respect to this interference – both horses suffered a small loss of momentum. Both horses then raced in close proximity, with KASHKEEPER maintaining a margin over GOD DAM to the finish line.

Having reviewed both incidents put forward by the Informant in relation to the merits of the protest, the Adjudicative Committee was confident that the required standard for interference had not been met and therefore could not proceed with establishing whether a change of placings was warranted.

Decision:

The protest is dismissed and the Judges’ placings stand. Stakes and dividends are to be paid accordingly.