Waikato TR 29 May 2024 – R5 – PONTE VECCHIO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Ms B Rogerson (Apprentice Rider representing the connections of HUTSON) alleged that horse No. 11 (PONTE VECCHIO) placed 2nd  by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 14 (HUTSON) placed 4th  by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st    No. 2    MARS

2nd   No. 11  PONTE VECCHIO

3rd    No. 5   HANALEI

4th    No. 14  HUTSON

The official margin was 3 ¼ L, ½ head, head.

The elements of the Protest Rule were explained to the parties.

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 Judicial 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 and shown, namely head-on, side-on, back straight and rear-on.

The Applicant, Apprentice Rider of HUTSON, Ms Rogerson, advised that rounding the home turn, she was half a length behind MARS (M McNab) who was on her outer.  She said she was making ground.  Using the race films, Ms Rogerson pointed out that PONTE VECCHIO shifted out into her line, and she clipped a heel, causing her mount to lose momentum and significant ground.  She said after balancing up, she made considerable ground and she felt that if she had not been checked, would have beaten PONTE VECCHIO.

Mr N Harris, Rider Mentor, supporting Ms Rogerson, agreed that HUTSON lost momentum and ground when PONTE VECCHIO shifted out.

The Respondent Mr Marsh, Trainer of PONTE VECCHIO, stated that he also agreed that his horse shifted out and he accepted there was interference.  But he said HUTSON had plenty of opportunity to make up the lost ground.

Apprentice Rider Mr Moodley, Rider of PONTE VECCHIO, stated that at the top of the straight, the horse to his inside “in the pink colours” (PHARAOH’S DREAM – W Pinn), shifted out and “slightly bumped” his horse.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that interference did occur nearing the 250 metres when PONTE VECCHIO shifted out into the line of HUTSON, who clipped a heel, lost momentum and considerable ground.  He added that, given the manner in which HUTSON made up ground over the final stages, it was an important factor for the Adjudicative Committee to consider when assessing whether HUTSON would have beaten PONTE VECCHIO, but for the interference.

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 it is the opinion of the Adjudicative Committee that it is ‘more probable or likely than not’ that the horse interfered with would have beaten that runner.

Decision

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee upheld the protest, changed the placings and authorised payment of dividends in accordance with the decision.

Reasons

The evidence established that PONTE VECCHIO shifted out into the running line of HUTSON, who was establishing itself into a gap between MARS, on its outer and PONTE VECCHIO, on its inside.  As a result of  PONTE VECCHIO’s shift, the gap closed, HUTSON was checked and clipped a heel and lost between ½ L and ¾ length as a consequence.  After balancing up, HUTSON finished the race off strongly and the margin between 4th and 2nd was half a head and a head.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that interference has occurred, which was the direct result of Mr Moodley directing PONTE VECCHIO outward.  The Adjudicative Committee does not place any weight on Mr Moodley’s assertion that PHARAOH’S DREAM shifted out, bumped his mount and contributed.  Accordingly, given the amount of ground lost, the margin at the finish and the manner in which HUTSON finished over the concluding stages of the race, the Adjudicative Committee is strongly of the opinion that, but for the interference, HUTSON would have finished ahead of PONTE VECCHIO.

Conclusion

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