Waverley RC 20 October 2024 – R7 – BATTLE SECRET

Background:

Following the running of Race 7, the “Steelformers Waverley Cup”, an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider of 2nd placed MEHZEBEEN, Ms Sutherland, alleged interference in the final straight. The Information was worded as follows:

‘Protest 2nd v 1st – BATTLE SECRET shifted ground shortly before the post dictating MEHZEBEEN outwards’

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Battle Secret

2nd  Mehzebeen

3rd   Canheroc

4th   Donnybrook

The margin between 1st and 2nd place 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 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”.

Evidence:

Prior to hearing submissions, Stewards showed all available film identifying the incident, alleged interference and runners involved.

Ms Sutherland protested on the grounds that in the straight, her mount was finishing strongly, that BATTLE SECRET had moved out and although no contact took place, this movement dictated her line. Ms Lee reiterated this contention.

In response, Mr Grylls commented that his horse did shift one half to one horse width very late in the race, possibly shying from the post. He remained adamant that MEHZEBEEN was not inconvenienced, had not changed leg and that Ms Sutherland was not forced to stop riding. Mr Thurlow was of the view that MEHZEBEEN had had ‘every’ opportunity to go past BATTLE SECRET, however, was not going well enough.

In providing comment, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin noted that both horses were finishing powerfully, Ms Sutherland had not stopped riding her horse and BATTLE SECRET had moved out ‘slightly’ – possibly one half a horse width.

Reasons for Decision:

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, 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.

Rule 642(2)(b) provides definition in respect of interference. It is to be noted that all submissions commented or agreed, that there was no contact made between the horses involved.  Contact is not a prerequisite to determining whether interference took place. Based upon the definition and film viewed, the Adjudicative Committee determined that interference, albeit slight, was evident.

The Adjudicative Committee concurs with comments of Stewards, that both horses were finishing powerfully after both were in tight quarters on entering the straight. Upon considering submissions, the degree of interference and the point at which same took place, the Adjudicative Committee was unable to form the opinion that the horse so interfered with, would have finished ahead of the horse causing such interference, had such not occurred. On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest by the second horse against the first horse was dismissed.

Decision:

The protest was dismissed. Payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with the Judge’s placings, was therefore approved.