Wellington RC 18 March 2023 – R2 – WINKLE BAY

Evidence

Following the running of Race 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Ms M Hudson alleged that horse number 14 WINKLE BAY placed 3^rd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 TESTIFY ME placed 4th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1^st – No. 11 HE’S BESET

2^nd – No. 15 ALMINETTE

3^rd – No. 14 WINKLE BAY

4^th – No. 2 TESTIFY ME

The official margin between 3^rd and 4^th placed horses was a short head.

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

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee requested that Stewards show all available Race films. Head-on, side-on, rear and drone views of the alleged interference were played, and the runners identified.

Ms Hudson, (TESTIFY ME) said she had been leaned on by WINKLE BAY over the final stages, and as a result had not been able to use her whip or push her mount out to the finish. With a clear run Ms Hudson believed she would have run third. Ms Miller, Trainer of TESTIFY ME, said that the Rider of WINKLE BAY (Ms Butler) had not straightened her mount and had full use of the whip while Ms Hudson had been prevented from using her whip.

Mr Patterson, (Trainer WINKLE BAY) said there had clearly been inward movement by his horse, but WINKLE BAY had come from behind TESTIFY ME, was always travelling better and in his opinion the interference did not cost TESTIFY ME a better position.

Ms Butler, (Rider of WINKLE BAY) said her horse was travelling better than TESTIFY ME and maintained there was always room for Ms Hudson to ride her mount out.

Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham outlined the Stewards interpretation of the alleged interference. He said WINKLE BAY came from well behind TESTIFY ME and did move inwards over the final stages causing minor interference to TESTIFY ME.  Ms Hudson however was able to push her mount out through to the finish.

Reasons For Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Adjudicative Committee must firstly establish whether interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage the Adjudicative Committee established that WINKLE BAY mounted a strong run from a position well behind TESTIFY ME but was inclined to lay in and caused some minor interference to TESTIFY ME within the final 100 metres. Ms Hudson was dictated inwards but remained able to ride her mount out to the finish.

The Adjudicative Committee considered the degree of interference, the margin of a short head between the two horses at the finish, and the way both horses were finishing the race off.  The Adjudicative could not be satisfied that TESTIFY ME would have finished in a higher placing had the incident not occurred. On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judges placings stand.

Decision

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