Wellington RC 27 October 2024 – R7 – OUR DAYMO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 2, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer J Lupton alleged that horse No. 4 (OUR DAYMO) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 9 (LOSTCAUSE) 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. 4  OUR DAYMO

2nd  No. 9  LOSTCAUSE

3rd   No. 7  SPLIT

4th   No. 2  CROUCH

The official margin was half a head between 1st and 2nd horses.

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 of the alleged interference and identify the runners.

Rider Ms L Hemi reported that she had come from well behind OUR DAYMO and was going to go right past Mr Singh’s mount, when she received a bump that halted her momentum. She noted that this loss of momentum was particularly impactful, due to the heavy track conditions.

Trainer of LOSTCAUSE, Ms J Lupton stated that, while both horses had been moving around, it was the sudden outward shift by OUR DAYMO that caused her horse’s hindquarters to swing out, putting her horse off stride.

Mr Singh, the Rider of OUR DAYMO, acknowledged that both horses had shifted, but expressed his view that LOSTCAUSE had ample opportunity to pass his mount, but failed to do so. Mr Quinn, representing Trainer Mr Connors, observed that Ms Hemi did not cease riding and asserted that he did not believe her chances were significantly impacted.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Davidson provided the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He confirmed that both runners had shifted and that firm contact occurred approximately four metres from the finish line.

Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee assessed two key factors: (1) whether interference occurred, and (2) whether, if interference was established, the affected horse (LOSTCAUSE) would have finished ahead of the other runner (OUR DAYMO) had the interference not occurred.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that while both horses moved closer to each other over the concluding stages, it was the shift outward of OUR DAYMO that caused a significant bump that impacted LOSTCAUSE’S position and stride. It was noted that LOSTCAUSE was travelling well, making ground, and appeared poised to go past OUR DAYMO, before the interference occurred. The bump forced LOSTCAUSE’S hindquarters outward, unbalancing the horse and causing a loss of momentum at a critical stage of the race, approximately four metres from the finish line. The Adjudicative Committee determined that the impact was significant; it was not merely incidental contact, but a significant bump.

Ms Hemi, the Rider of LOSTCAUSE, maintained her efforts to ride through the interference, as there was no opportunity for her to pull back and regain momentum in the short distance remaining.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that OUR DAYMO did interfere with the chances of LOSTCAUSE, and having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the close margin of half a head at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee concluded that, free of interference, LOSTCAUSE would likely have passed OUR DAYMO to win the race. Therefore, it was deemed probable that, without the interference, LOSTCAUSE would have finished ahead.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st  No. 9  LOSTCAUSE

2nd No. 4  OUR DAYMO

3rd  No. 7  SPLIT

4th  No. 2  CROUCH

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.