Racing: Relegation rule found lacking

By MIKE DILLON

A newly introduced relegation rule in racing is fundamentally flawed.

Sedecrem's New Zealand Bloodstock Insurance 1400 win at Te Aroha on Saturday showed up a glaring irregularity.

In a complicated scenario, stipendiary stewards lodged a protest against both Sedecrem and second-placed Zahdeal, alleging severe interference in the closing 100m to fifth-placed Travellin' Man.

That severe interference occurred is not in question. What eventually saw the protest thrown out and allowed placings to stand is that a solid case could not be made against both Zahdeal AND Sedecrem.

Under Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand's new ruling a relegation cannot be made unless the horse on behalf of which the protest is being lodged can be promoted into a dividend-bearing place.

Which meant that for the Judicial Control Authority pair of Murray Smith and John Davies to uphold the protest, they had to find that both Sedecrem and Zahdeal were equally at fault.

The head-on video was dramatic and Travellin' Man's rider, Bruce Herd, admitted later he thought he was a chance to be brought down.

But it showed that 90 per cent of the interference came from Zahdeal and Lance O'Sullivan, against the inside rail, moving out sharply onto the weakening Millennium, pushing him onto the fast-finishing Travellin' Man.

At the same time, Sedecrem, on the outside, moved in just as sharply.

Travellin' Man and Millennium had to be severely checked.

Sedecrem co-trainer Colin Jillings helped win the case when he argued that most of the interference had come from Zahdeal.

Perhaps a better explanation is that had it not been for Zahdeal's movement, Travellin' Man probably would not have been inconvenienced by the inward movement of Sedecrem to the extent it would have affected his final placing.

When Sedecrem started his inward movement he was slightly clear of Travellin' Man.

What Sedecrem's movement created was no escape route for Travellin' Man, or Millennium from the inside pressure of Zahdeal.

Had it not been for the new ruling there is no question Zahdeal would have lost his second placing.

What might have happened to Sedecrem is open to debate.

What the new rule invites is to suggest to jockeys that any possible interference to a horse which might finish fourth had better be good enough to ensure that that horse could not be promoted into a dividend-bearing position by finishing further back than fourth.

Senior stipendiary steward Allan Coles said later he was surprised by the JCA decision, even allowing it meant both Sedecrem and Zahdeal had to be relegated.

"We put the protest in believing full well it would be upheld - we're not in the business of promoting protests that are not in that league," said Coles.

Neither Lance O'Sullivan nor Sedecrem's rider, apprentice Patrick Holmes, was charged with causing interference, in effect, Coles claimed, because without the placings changing it would have been difficult to sustain a case against either jockey.

O'Sullivan's defence would have been that Zahdeal shied away from signage attached to the winning post.

The champion jockey was certain of it when, in the following race, his runaway winner Black Muscat also shied from the advertising when well clear of the opposition.

Holmes obeyed instructions on Sedecrem and hit the horse only twice behind the saddle in the home straight.

He may have scraped out of a careless riding charge because Sedecrem was clear of Travellin' Man, but he was definitely guilty of making no attempt to straighten his mount, albeit that the incident happened close to the winning post.

A lot of stories came out of the race.

That Sedecrem is one of New Zealand's most promising horses is not in question; Millennium, coming back from a break, is about to jump into a win and Travellin' Man, whose form has been mystifying, can win a decent race before the tracks get wet.

This is not a popular opinion, but if you watch the video enough times you can make the case that Travellin' Man, with a straight run, might have won, even though had the protest been successful, third was the best he could have done.

With 90m to run, Travellin' Man was finishing so strongly he ran past the eventual third-placed runner, Ego Fast, by at least a neck in distance and was edging away from Ego Fast when the interference occurred.

Ego Fast was beaten only a nose and half a length and it is easy to make the case that Travellin' Man would have been more than that in front of Ego Fast by the winning post.

The incident was not a good advertisement for racing's judicial rules.

The new ruling needs review.