Wanganui JC 21 September 2024 – R4 – FARRAVALLO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr W Pinn, Rider of Horse No. 9 alleged that horse No. 11 (FARRAVALLO) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 9 (REIGN IT IN), placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred over the concluding stages.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 11  FARRAVALLO

2nd No.9    REIGN IT IN

3rd No. 6   MAKE TIME

4th No. 3   SPENCER

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a long neck.

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

Before hearing submissions, the Adjudicative Committee requested that the Stewards present all available race footage of the alleged interference and identify the horses involved.

The Applicant, Mr Pinn, argued that his horse was unlucky and should have won the race. He pointed out where he had to pull off the heels of the winner, stop riding, and regain balance. He demonstrated where his horse was shifted wide on the track by FARRAVALLO, stating that without this interference, his horse would have won the race.

Mr Bergerson, Trainer of both horses involved, agreed that REIGN IT IN had been forced wider and put off balance. However, in his view, FARRAVALLO was finishing stronger and finding the line better than the second-placed horse.

Jockey Mr Chowdhoory, riding FARRAVALLO, contended that his horse was always travelling better than REIGN IT IN, who was not gaining ground.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin then presented the Stewards’ interpretation of the incident. He explained that FARRAVALLO shifted out under pressure, hampering the run of REIGN IT IN, who finished second by a long neck.  The Stewards believed that the winner was holding the second horse at the finish.

Reasons for Decision

Under the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must first determine if interference occurred and, if so, whether the horse that suffered the interference, would have finished ahead of the other, if the interference had not taken place.

Footage from the rear, side, and head-on cameras, confirmed that FARRAVALLO drifted outwards over the concluding stages, slightly hampering the run of REIGN IT IN. However, after considering the location of the interference, the margin at the finish, and the finishing efforts of both horses, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that the protest should be upheld.

The Adjudicative Committee concluded that even without the interference, there was doubt that the second-placed horse would have beaten the first-placed horse.

Decision

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

The Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money as per this decision.