Woodville-Pahiatua RC 17 November 2024 – R8 – JACKAROO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 8, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr N Goodwin, alleged that horse Number 6 JACKAROO placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse Number 1 CARIGNAN, placed 2nd by the Judge.

The Information stated alleged interference nearing the winning post, when JACKAROO (K Hercock) turned its head towards CARIGNAN (L Sutherland), making contact and appearing to bite.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st  No. 6 JACKAROO

2nd  No. 1 CARIGNAN

3rd   No. 10 LOVEHELEN

4th  No. 4 LURID

The official margin was half a 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 Stewards showed all available race films of the alleged incident and identified the runners. There was no rear view, which is often most useful.

CARIGNAN and JACKAROO were racing side by side down the home straight in a manner Mr Goodwin described as a “dog-fight”. CARIGNAN was to the outside of JACKAROO and may have got slightly ahead.  The side-on film showed that just prior to the finish, CARIGNAN changed stride, which was more than likely due to JACKAROO turning its head and attempting to bite. The head-on film showed the reason JACKAROO turned, and appeared to bite, was that CARIGNAN rolled in and made contact with JACKAROO. Mr Goodwin said this was a very unusual situation and a difficult decision to call.

Ms Sutherland said prior to the incident, JACKAROO had moved outwards, but she admitted she had rolled inwards onto CARIGNAN. With a clear run, she thought she would have won the race. Mr Myers believed that JACKAROO had grabbed the bridle of CARIGNAN, causing him to change stride.

The Rider of JACKAROO, Ms Hercock, agreed that there had been a dogfight down the straight between the two horses and explained how she was unable to use her whip, due to CARIGNAN rolling in on her horse, with about 25m to go. Mr Andrew explained that JACKAROO’s bridle had a cross-over noseband, which made it impossible for the horse to open its mouth and bite. He said while it turned towards the other horse, its mouth was closed and he believed that JACKAROO lost more momentum in the incident, than CARIGNAN. Ms Hercock agreed that her horse did not bite the bridle of the other horse.

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 reviewing video footage and hearing submissions, the Adjudicative Committee observed that both horses deviated slightly from a straight line at different points in the home straight, prior to the incident. This is not uncommon in racing and did not constitute interference. Just prior to the incident, there was adequate space between the two horses. However, while JACKAROO maintained a straight line, CARIGNAN rolled inward, making contact with JACKAROO. JACKAROO reacted by turning its head towards CARIGNAN, appearing to give a warning nip approximately 4 strides from the finish.  Mr Andrew provided evidence that JACKAROO was wearing a crossover noseband, preventing it from opening its mouth fully. Video evidence supported that JACKAROO attempted to nip CARIGNAN when its space was invaded, but did not actually bite the face or grab CARIGNAN’s bridle.

Given the mutual involvement of both horses in the incident—CARIGNAN’s inward movement preventing Ms Hercock from using the whip, and JACKAROO’s retaliation causing CARIGNAN to change stride—it is not clear that either horse was significantly disadvantaged to the extent that it affected the finishing order. Considering the complexity and unusual nature of the incident, as noted by Mr Goodwin, the Adjudicative Committee concluded that there were insufficient grounds to justify altering the original race result.

Therefore, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed, and the Judge’s placings stand.

Decision

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.