Back to decisions search

Waikato TR 14 December 2024 – R1 – SWEET ICE

ID: RIB49405

Respondent(s):
David G Greene - Trainer

Applicant:
Mr K Pertab

Adjudicators:
Mr G Jones and Mrs H Gray

Persons Present:
Mr Oatham, Mr B Jones, Mr K Pertab, Mr N Parmar, Mr Greene, Ms S Spratt

Information Number:
A18795

Decision Type:
Protest

Rule(s):
642(1) - Riding/driving infringement

Plea:
Contested

Protest:
Second v First

Animal Name:
SWEET ICE

Code:
Thoroughbred

Race Date:
14/12/2024

Race Club:
Waikato Thoroughbred Racing

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

Race Number:
R1

Hearing Date:
14/12/2024

Hearing Location:
Te Rapa

Outcome: Protest Dismissed

Penalty: N/A

Evidence 

Following the running of Race 1, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer Mr K Pertab alleged that horse No. 7 (SWEET ICE) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 1 (CURZON PARK) placed 2nd by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 7 SWEET ICE (S Spratt)

2nd  No. 1 CURZON PARK (N Parmar)

3rd   No. 8 TOWERING VISION (V Colgan)

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was 1 3/4 lengths.

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”.

Interference is defined as:

  • a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
  • a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
  • a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

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. Four camera angles were available, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and turn.

The Applicant Mr Pertab, Trainer of CURZON PARK, said that my Jockey (Mr Parmar) has to had to steady and almost clipped heels. He had to take a “big check”, as SWEET ICE has shifted out into our line. He said he’s forced CURZON PARK into the inside, who has picked up and made ground. SWEET ICE has kept laying out into my horses’ vision and has lost approximately 5 strides, when just getting into the race.

Mr Parmar, the Rider of CURZON PARK, said that he got checked, had to change his line and his mount has had to change legs.  This caused him to clip heels and he has lost momentum.  He came back again, but it was too late.

Mr Greene, Trainer of SWEET ICE, said that from the 200 metres, his horse was at least one length clear.  He said CURZON PARK leaned into TOWERING VISION from the 100 metres.  Mr Parmar had to straighten his horse and then changed ground.  From that point, SWEET ICE lengthened its margin to the finish.  He added, CURZON PARK was never going to get past SWEET ICE.

Ms Spratt, Rider of SWEET ICE, said CURZON PARK would never have beaten SWEET ICE, who kicked away at the finish.

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that the winner was always at least a length clear.  CURZON PARK was hampered for 3 or 4 strides, after which the winner increased its margin.  The Steward’s view is that CURZON PARK would not have beaten SWEET ICE and Stewards do not support the protest.

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.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means ‘more probable or than not’ that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that from about the 150 metres, CURZON PARK and TOWERING VISION were racing in tight quarters side by side.  SWEET ICE has shifted ground from the inside to the centre of the track, but was always about one length clear.  There is no doubt that for a stride or two, both TOWERING VISION and CURZON PARK were hampered by the outward movement of SWEET ICE.  CURZON PARK has had to change ground.  But, any loss of momentum was minor, and SWEET ICE finished the race off strongly, and the margin between first and second was 1 ¾ lengths at the finish.

Although the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference occurred, it is not satisfied to the required standard of proof that, but for the interference, CURZON PARK would have beaten SWEET ICE.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed.

Decision

The protest is dismissed, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with its decision.

Decision Date: 14/12/2024

Publish Date: 16/12/2024