Wellington RC 6 December 2025 – R2 – THORAX

SUMMARY:

Immediately following the running of Race 2, the “JR & N BERKETT 1300”, the Rider of CLASSY BRAHMA, Mr B Queiroz, the second placed horse, lodged a protest against the winner THORAX, ridden by Mr C Grylls.  It was contended that in terms of the “Protest Rule” 642(1), THORAX and Mr Grylls caused interference to CLASSY BRAHMA, so as to require THORAX to be relegated into second place and CLASSY BRAHMA consequently promoted to first place.

The Judge’s margins between the two horses was 1/2 head.

DECISION:

After hearing evidence and submissions from both sets of Trainers, Connections, both Riders, Chief Stipendiary Steward J Oatham, and viewing several times the race films (head, rear and side on), the Adjudicative Committee dismissed the protest, and stated that the placings of the horses as fixed by the Judge are to stand.  The Adjudicative Committee advised that its reasons would be later given in writing.  This it now does.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

As the field were inside the 150m mark, THORAX was leading and reasonably clear, but CLASSY BRAHMA was mounting a determined run towards its outside.  THORAX, whilst under pressure, slightly shifted out at about the 100 metre mark.  Mr Queiroz said “my horse got frightened” and received “a slight bump” and “cost me the race”.  Mr Grylls said that there was no contact made then (and only slight right on the finish line) and that he rolled out by a fraction and he was pushed back in by pressure applied by Mr Queiroz.  The films and evidence of Mr Oatham, illustrated both horses shifted under pressure, with THORAX laying out, but CLASSY BRAHMA laying in.

Before there can be a “cause of interference” under Rule 642(1), there first has to be “interference” as defined in Rule 642(2)(b).  The only relevant definition could have been “jostling”, but that does not occur under the Rule “if the horse or Rider jostled with is partly at fault”.  The evidence which the Adjudicative Committee accepts, and applied, is that there was movement from both horses. So there could not be “interference” as defined and required by the Rules.

And the momentary contact that occurred right on the finish line had no bearing on the result.

Accordingly, there being no “interference”, or defined and required under the Rule, no consideration of the Rule 642(1) was required or necessary.