Whangarei RC 6 August 2022 – R5 – ANNA TAIT

Evidence

Following the running of Race 5, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, P Gerard, Trainer of ALPINO, alleged that horse Number 10 (ANNA TAIT) placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse Number 9 (ALPINO) placed 4th by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred from the 700m mark and into the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 14 TEXAS

2nd  No. 10 ANNA TAIT

3rd  No. 1 MISCREANT

4th   No. 9 ALPINO

The official margins between 2nd and 3rd were 1.25 lengths and the margin between 3rd and 4th was .5 length.

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.

Ms Gerard stated that ALPINO was severely interfered with by ANNA TAIT, as she was dragged right of the track and she estimated the interference cost her 5-6 lengths.

The Rider of ALPINO (C Grylls) stated he was in a 1 off position prior to the interference and ended up closer to the outside rail than the inside rail as a result of ANNA TAIT shifting him wider. He said not only would he have beaten ANNA TAIT if the interference hadn’t occurred but he would have also won the race.

The Respondent J Morrell stated that ANNA TAIT didn’t contact ALPINO but did force it wide on the track. He said that ALPINO was under pressure and was never going well enough.

The Rider of ANNA TAIT (L Satherley) said ANNA TAIT was hanging out, and that ALPINO was never going to beat her mount. She said that her mount ANNA TAIT did everything wrong and still ran 2nd and ALPINO needed to prove it was going to beat her mount for the protest to be upheld.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that as both runners entered the bend at around the 700m mark ANNA TAIT was racing in a loose one off position with ALPINO to its outside. He said that ANNA TAIT was barely a length clear of ALPINO, when ANNA TAIT started to hang and shift ground. He said that ALPINO was forced over a conservative 10-12 horse widths wider than it should have been as a result of ANNA TAIT hanging. He said the margin between the two runners at the finish was 1.75 lengths and the Adjudicative Committee needed to determine whether the interference equated to more than the beaten margin.

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 around the 700m to the 300m ANNA TAIT was hanging out and shifting ground outwards on the track proving a difficult ride for her Jockey L SATHERLEY. As a result ALPINO who was very slightly behind and to her outer, was forced over considerable extra ground. It can be easily established that interference had most definitely occurred. The Adjudicative Committee identified that as a result of the shift, ALPINO was forced at least 12 horse widths away from the inside fence before it switched ground back to the inside. Both horses ran home free of interference from the 250m to the finish line. Of note to the Adjudicative Committee was that prior to the interference, the trailing runners (which were several lengths behind), remained on the rail and made up several lengths on the horses that raced wide without any urging.

Having considered the degree and nature of the interference, the way both horses finished the race and the margin of 1.75 lengths at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee determined that the level of interference exceeded the beaten margin.  On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st   No. 14 TEXAS

2nd  No. 1 MISCREANT

3rd   No.  9 ALPINO

4th   No. 10 ANNA TAIT

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