Waikato TR 3 May 2025 – R6 – TOWERING VISION

Evidence

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Mr B Donoghue (Trainer of NAVY DREAMS) alleged that horse number 4 (TOWERING VISION) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse number 8 (NAVY DREAMS) 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. 4 TOWERING VISION

1st  No. 8 NAVY DREAMS

3rd  No. 2 TORETTO

4th  No. 1 WYNDSTORM

The official margin between first and second was a nose.

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

The Applicant Mr Donoghue raised 2 objections.  First, he alleged interference at the 50m mark, where TOWERING VISION, who had been moving out, made contact with NAVY DREAMS, unbalancing that horse and causing it to lose momentum.

His second concern was that just before the line, there was contact again, which again caused his horse to lose momentum. In his opinion, the interference from the two contacts had cost NAVY DREAMS the race.

Mr Moodley agreed with Mr Donoghue, saying that his horse was unbalanced by the contact with TOWERING VISION and it was enough to have cost him the outright win.

Mr Bergerson illustrated, using the mowing strip on the head on film, that while TOWERING VISION had moved out early in the run home, it had then held its ground and in fact, NAVY DREAMS had laid in, causing the initial interference at the 50 metre mark and again had come in, when contact was again made near the line. He felt NAVY DREAMS had come in and caused the interference, more than TOWERING VISION.

Mr Grylls, the Rider of TOWERING VISION, said that it was NAVY DREAMS coming in, that had caused the interference at the 50 metre mark. He also noted that Mr Moodley had never had to stop riding his horse out.

Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference.  He said that TOWERING VISION laid out when placed under pressure in the final straight, coming together with NAVY DREAMS, which shifted inwards passing the 50 metres and again, just prior to the winning post. He considered that NAVY DREAMS had moved in and been the main cause of the two horses coming together, particularly at the 50 metre mark. He demonstrated this through the back on film, which showed how Mr Moodley was shifting in. Both horses had come together again, just before the finishing line. In summing up, the Stewards believed that the interference was caused by both runners, but that NAVY DREAMS was more at fault and they therefore did not support the protest.

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 dismissed the protest and authorised the payment of dividends in accordance with the Judge’s call.

Reasons for Decision

The video evidence established that while TOWERING VISION had shifted out initially during the run down the straight, the mowing strip clearly showed that TOWERING VISION had straightened as the two came together, and NAVY DREAMS had moved in and had largely caused the interference at the 50 metre mark. When the horses came together again almost on the finishing line, NAVY DREAMS had come in slightly, as well as TOWERING VISION coming out.

In summary, when both horses had come together at the 50 metre mark, the main fault lay with NAVY DREAMS, who lay in. The second contact was almost on the finishing line and again, NAVY DREAMS had contributed to the interference. Therefore, the Adjudicative Committee dismissed the protest.

Conclusion

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