Whangarei RC 16 August 2025 – R3 – CLEAT

Evidence

Following the running of Race 3, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr A Scott, alleged that horse No. 1 CLEAT place 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 3 REPTAK, placed second by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 1   CLEAT

2nd  No. 3   REPTAK

3rd   No. 4   AGE OF DISCOVERY

The official margin between first and second was a long 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”.

Interference is defined as:

• a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
• a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
• a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

Submissions for Decision

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee requested that Chief Stipendiary Steward J Oatham show all available race films of the alleged interference and identify the runners.

Ms S Logan represented the connections of REPTAK at the hearing. She stated CLEAT has run out and made contact with REPTAK, who has lost momentum as a consequence. She said at no stage did CLEAT’S Rider Mr Lahoud, stop riding, and he never corrected his mount. Had he done so, Ms Logan said CLEAT would never have won the race.

The Rider of REPTAK, Mr S McNab, stated that contact was made, and Mr Lahoud has never stopped riding his mount. He said REPTAK was forced over extra ground and REPTAK has kicked again close to the line.

Ms P Gerard, representing the connections of CLEAT, stated that near the top of the straight, REPTAK was racing on “the wrong leg” and Mr McNab allowed his mount to shift inwards. She said that over the concluding stages, Mr McNab never stopped riding his mount out to the finish and CLEAT was pulling away.

Mr Lahoud said his horse CLEAT, made contact with REPTAK, but Mr McNab never stopped riding forward.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that the race films clearly show that both CLEAT and REPTAK were racing “head-to-head.” He said, “CLEAT did make brief contact, more so a brush, with REPTAK.” He added that CLEAT pulled away and it is the Stewards’ view that REPTAK would not have beaten CLEAT.

Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee 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.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that in the final 100 metres, CLEAT did shift out about 1 ½ horse-widths and soft contact was made with REPTAK.

The interference was minimal and there was no discernible loss of momentum. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied, having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race off and the half head margin at the finish, REPTAK would not have finished ahead of CLEAT, had the contact not occurred. On that basis, in the exercise of its discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

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