Wellington RC 22 March 2025 – R7 – VEGAS QUEEN

REASONS FOR DECISION:

(1)  Because these two Information’s were of necessity heard together, under time restraints and were being based upon two protest, they had to be heard together.  They were based on allegations relating to the final passage of the Rule.  The individual decisions were nevertheless determined separately.

(2)  Immediately following the running of Race 7, the “IRT WELLINGTON GUINEAS”, two separate protests were lodged on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd horses, both against the 1st horse.

(3)  The Judge’s initial placings, before the protests were heard were:

1st      VEGAS QUEEN (Mr W Pinn)

2nd     ARCHAIC SMILE (Mr M Hashizume)

3rd     DRAMATIC MISS (Ms T Mitchell)

4th     SHE’S UNTOUCHABLE (Mr M Cartwright)

5th     BALLON D’OR (Mr J Doyle)

The margins, where relevant, were 1/2 length, 1/2 head, long head.

(4)  The Adjudicative Committee heard evidence from Mr M Hashizume, Mr W Pinn, Mr D Johnson, Mr R Elliot, Mr B Jones and reviewed the various race films, as well as submissions from various parties.

(5)  After deliberating, the Adjudicative Committee dismissed both protests, and ruled that the Judge’s decision stand.

(6)  The Adjudicative Committee records this is therefore its reasons.

(7)  The Protest Rule, is (or should be) well known.  Rule 642(1) provides:

“If a placed horse…. 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 after the horse interfered with.”

(8)  Obviously the first question which has to be determined, is the “interference”.  That noun is later defined in Rule 642(2)(b) as either:

(a)  crossing another horse without being the required distance clear

(b)  jostling unless caused by another horse

(c)  in any other way “interfering” [the verb] with another horse unless such “interference” [the noun] was caused by the “fault” of another

(9)  Logically, any horse may have its chances “interfered” with, but there is no “interference” in terms of the Rule, which only applies where there is a protest and such cannot occur unless the “victim” becomes a placed horse – which is not the present situation.

(10)  In this case, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied to the required standard that only actions of “VEGAS QUEEN” fell within the definitions of “interference” in this Rule.

(11)  “VEGAS QUEEN” has led throughout the race.  When “ARCHAIC SMILE” and other runners in contention sought to mount challenges inside the 200 metre mark, an apparent earlier available gap, and apparent to Mr Hashizume, closed.  This was before he could take advantage of it.  There had been a little movement from several of the challenging horses, and not by “VEGAS QUEEN” to the extent that it met the definition of “interference” in Rule 642(2)(b).  Consequently, it was not necessary for any considerations of Rule 642(1) to occur in favour of “ARCHAIC SMILE”.

(12)  Despite that, even if “interference” as defined had occurred, the Adjudicative Committee was not satisfied that “ARCHAIC SMILE” would probably have beaten “VEGAS QUEEN”, so the requirements of Rule 642(1) could not be met.

(13)  The protest on behalf of the third horse “DRAMATIC MISS” could not succeed because “interference” as defined in the Rule, had to be that of “VEGAS QUEEN” to it, so as to require that horse to be relegated to 3rd place and “DRAMATIC MISS” placed 3rd.  But that was never seriously argued and in fairness to Mr Johnson, he did not really advance such a claim.

(14)  For those reasons, both protest Information’s were dismissed.