R Tauranga 14 January 2022 – R7 – GOLDEN HUE

EVIDENCE:

Following the running of Race 7, the Ray White Tauranga Handicap, an Information was lodged instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1) by connections of the third placed horse MACH SCHNELL alleging interference in the final straight by the second placed horse GOLDEN HUE.

The Applicant Mr Clotworthy (Trainer of MACH SCHNELL) alleged that horse number 3 (GOLDEN HUE) placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 2 (MACH SCHNELL) placed 3rd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight over the concluding stages of the race.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st     Ali Arc (8)

2nd   Golden Hue (3)

3rd    Mach Schnell (2)

4th    Shining Peak (13)

The margin between the second and the third horse was conveyed as a neck.

Rule 642 (1) provides:

“If a placed horse or its Rider causes interference within the meaning of this Rule 642 to another 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”.

The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In Thoroughbred Racing this standard is reached when the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied, on the basis of credible evidence, that the requirements of the Protest Rule have been met.

SUBMISSIONS FOR DECISION

Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties the Adjudicative Committee requested that Stewards show all available films to identify the runners and alleged interference. Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones showed head on, side on and rear footage of the race from the top of the straight to the finish.

Mr Clotworthy as Applicant submitted that it was ‘clear cut’ and that on two occasions in the straight MACH SCHNELL was forced out as GOLDEN HUE began to lay out under pressure. He contended that if this had not taken place MACH SCHNELL would have finished second.

Mr Asano (MACH SCHNELL) commented that at the top of the straight he was looking to balance his horse but because of the actions of GOLDEN HUE he was unable to do so.  He added that his mount had to change leg and he was forced to change whip hand.

Ms Northcott conceded that GOLDEN HUE did drift however she was of the view that MACH SCHNELL still had opportunity to pass, was unable to do so with GOLDEN HUE finishing the stronger of the two at the line.

Mr Beemud (GOLDEN HUE) submitted that he attempted to straighten his mount. Mr Harris as Northern Region Riding Master supported Mr Beemud’s assertion in addition to which he added that Mr Asano did not have to stop riding as a result of any interference.

Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Williamson provided his interpretation of the incident. He submitted that there was interference at the 300 metre mark and again at the 150 metre mark along with a ‘minor inconvenience’ at the 50 metre mark. He drew the Adjudicative Committee’s and parties’ attention to Rule 642(1) in particular the use of the word ‘would’ as applied in determining the success or not of any protest.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule the Adjudicative Committee must first establish that interference did occur and secondly, if interference is established, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.

Rule 642(2)(b) provides definition as to interference.

Based upon submissions and presentation of video footage the Adjudicative Committee are of the view MACH SCHNELL was dictated wider on the track as a result of the actions of GOLDEN HUE. This represented interference as defined within the pertinent Rule.

Having considered the degree and nature of the interference the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that it cannot be comfortably satisfied that but for the interference, MACH SCHNELL would have beaten GOLDEN HUE.

On that basis, in the exercise of our discretion, the protest is dismissed.

DECISION

The protest was dismissed and the Judge’s provisional placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorised payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.