Whangarei RC 24 September 2022 – R5 – IS THAT SO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr S Clotworthy  alleged that horse No. 7, IS THAT SO placed 3rd by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 8, MR JAY EIGHT placed 4th by the Judge.

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

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 4 – MISS CARTIER

2nd No. 6  – TIVAAN WARRIOR

3rd  No. 7 – IS THAT SO

4th  No. 8 – MR JAY EIGHT

The official margin 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 of the alleged interference and identify the runners.

Mr Clotworthy stated that IS THAT SO moved 2 horse widths off its line while MR JAY EIGHT was taking ground from it. He said that IS THAT SO made contact with MR JAY EIGHT twice and that the interference equated to more than the beaten margin.

Mr Hashizume said he got dictated too, up the straight and he got contacted 2-3 times, he couldn’t use his whip properly and that cost him.

Mr Isdale said that early in the straight MR JAY EIGHT had layed into another horse. He said that around the 200m mark MR JAY EIGHT had gone to duck in behind IS THAT SO.  Mr Isdale inferred that initial contact had occurred as a result of MR JAY EIGHT bumping IS THAT SO. He said that IS THAT SO had maintained a straight line until the 50m mark.

Ms Spratt agreed with Mr Isdale’s interpretation. She said MR JAY EIGHT was laying in the length of the straight. She said at the 200m MR JAY EIGHT had contacted her horse from behind and twisted it. She said that MR JAY EIGHT had its opportunity to run past her but didn’t due to its tendency to lay in.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Brady Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that prior to the 200m, IS THAT SO had shifted off its running line, but it was clear of any runners so was able to do so. He said that just past the 200m point, IS THAT SO shifted outwards 1 horse width when not clear of MR JAY EIGHT. Mr Jones said that the horses then had an interference free run until the 50m, where the horses came together and then bumped again, approximately 2 strides prior to the line.

Mr Jones said there was some merit in the protest, however the Adjudicative Committee need to be satisfied that Mr JAY Eight would have beaten IS THAT SO had the interference not occurred.

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 from the 200m, both IS THAT SO and MR JAY EIGHT were racing in close proximity under strong rides and in tight quarters. The videos showed that interference had occurred on 2 occasions, with the first occasion being as a result of MR JAY EIGHT laying in onto IS THAT SO’s hind quarters at around the 50m mark, and the second interference occurring closer to the line as a result of IS THAT SO shifting out.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that while interference did occur, having balanced the contributing factors combined with the nature in which both horses finished the race and the margin at the finish, a change of placings was not justified.  On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s 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.