Waikato RC 18 January 2023 – R10 – BURGUNDY IFF

ID: RIB14700

Joe Doyle - Jockey

N Parmar - Apprentice Jockey

Adam Smith (Chair), Gaylene Himona

Persons Present:
Mr R Liefting - Trainer of KAIDU'S PRIDE, Mrs D Jeffcoat - Trainer of BURGUNDY IFF, B Jones - Stipendiary Steward, C Simpson - Stipendiary Steward, N Harris - Apprentice Mentor

Information Number:

Decision Type:

642(1) - Riding/driving infringement



Animal Name:


Race Date:

Race Club:
Waikato Racing Club

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

Race Number:

Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Te Rapa Racecourse

Outcome: Protest Dismissed


Following the running of Race 10, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant N Parmar alleged that horse No. 7 (BURGUNDY IFF) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 8 (KAIDU’S PRIDE) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:


2nd  No. 8 KAIDU’S PRIDE

3rd   No. 9 SKY DANCER

The official margin was ¾ length

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.

Mr R Liefting stated that he could see the reason for the protest. He said the Rider of BURGUNDY IFF, wanted to get out of a pocket and shifted out bumping his horse on 2 occasions and dictating its line up the straight. He said that while he knew it was a reasonable margin at the finish, he felt the interference had cost his horse the chance of winning.

The Rider of KAIDU’s PRIDE said the first bump he received was bad and BURGUNDY IFF inconvenienced him the length of the straight.

The Respondent Mr Doyle, stated that the horse he was tracking threw its head up and stopped in front of him as he was angling across its heels. He said that the first bump was a decent bump and his horse was running away from the horse to its inner. He said the horses got close again later in the straight, but his mount was going away at the finish and KAIDU’S PRIDE would not have beaten him.

Mrs Jeffcoat said her horse did come out and hit KAIDU’S PRIDE. She said that both Jockeys were riding hands and heels and both went for their whip at the same time. She said that KAIDU’S PRIDE had the opportunity to get past BURGUNDY IFF, but didn’t and that BURGUNDY IFF was getting away at the line.

Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that it was clear that BURGUNDY IFF shifted out when insufficiently clear of KAIDU’s PRIDE and the two horses made contact around the 350m mark. He said at around the 225m SAMUEL LANGHORNE, which was racing to the inside of BURGUNDY IFF, shifted out slightly with BURGUNDY IFF shifting away from it and making contact with KAIDU’S PRIDE. He said both horses shifted out slightly at the 200m but then both had an interference free run to the line, with BURGUNDY IFF gaining a slight advantage over KAIDU’S PRIDE in the run to the finish.

Mr Jones said the Adjudicative Committee need to be satisfied that KAIDU’s PRIDE would have beaten BURGUNDY IFF had the interference not occurred, and that the Stipendiary Stewards would find that hard (to determine) on this occasion.

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 hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that interference to KAIDU’S PRIDE had occurred as a result of BURGUNDY IFF shifting out at both the 350m mark and again at the 225m mark. From the 200m point where both horses were racing adjacent to each other, and with an interference free run to the line, BURGUNDY IFF was able to establish a clear margin over KAIDU’S PRIDE.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that BURGUNDY IFF did interfere with the chances of KAIDU’S PRIDE, however having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the margins at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee has some doubt that KAIDU’S PRIDE would have finished ahead of  BURGUNDY IFF.  On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.


Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the decision.

Decision Date: 18/01/2023

Publish Date: 20/01/2023