Waikato BOP H 14 November 2025 – R7 – WORDS

Background:

Following the running of Race 7, a Junior Drivers event, the “IRT. Your Horse Our Passion Junior Drivers Mobile Pace”, Stewards lodged an Information instigating a protest (4th, 3rd, 2nd v 1st) pursuant to Rule 869A(1)(2). Detail in respect of the Information is as follows:

‘in that ‘Words’ shifted out in the run home despite the efforts of Driver E Johnson causing interference to outside runners Muchacho (2nd), Barbarossa (3rd) and Melody Banner (4th).

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   Words (3)

2nd  Muchacho (4)

3rd   Barbarossa (5)

4th   Melody Banner (7)

Margins declared were a short head, head and 1-1/4 lengths.

Rule 869A(1)(2) provides:

1) For the purpose of this rule: (a) “placed horse” means a horse placed by the Judge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th; (b) “interference” means any conduct referred to in rule 869 which interferes or is likely to interfere with the progress of any horse in a race. (2) When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.

Evidence:

Prior to commencement of the hearing, respective parties were introduced to the Adjudicative Committee. All Junior Drivers were satisfactorily represented. The pertinent Rule was read.

Stewards presented their submission, providing available film. As the field enters the home straight, WORDS is leading the field, with MUCHACHO behind and BARBAROSSA and MELODY BANNER to the outside of this horse and looking to improve. MUCHACHO looks to come off the back of the leader. At the 100m mark, WORDS begins to shift, with a ‘sharp’ movement then occurring. Stewards contended that this caused interference to varying degrees to the outside runners.

Driver were questioned. Mr Dunn (Driver MELODY BANNER) and Ms Wilkins (Driver BARBAROSSA) were asked ‘but for the interference within the last 100m would they, in their view, have beaten the horse first placed by the Judge’. Mr Dunn was firm in his view that he would not, whilst Ms Wilkins also expressed doubt. Their views where endorsed by connections. Based upon this evidence, Stewards did not then proceed with the protest 4th and 3rd v 1st. This ‘part’ of the protest was therefore dismissed.

Mr Orange was of the view that he had to take evasive action in response to the movement/interference, with this impacting the chances of his drive. This was reiterated by Mr Meredith, who added that his horse was put off stride and had to pick himself up to get going again after the interference. Ms Johnson in response, considered that if her horse had not moved, she would have won comfortably and that given her efforts in keeping the horse as straight as possible, Mr Orange was able to drive out his horse. Mr Abernethy was of the view that MUCHACHO had its opportunity to pass.

Reasons for Decision: 

In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, must be satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished in front of the horse causing the interference, but for the identified incident. Upon considering all inputs ie: the location and extent of interference, the resultant margin between 2nd and 1st (short head) and how the respective horses were travelling prior to the interference the Adjudicative Committee determined that the protest was to be upheld. The comments of Ms Johnson are noted, however accepting that WORDS may have won comfortably if it had run straight, is not material to this outcome.

Decision:

The protest 2nd v 1st is upheld with WORDS (3) relegated to 2nd and MUCHACHO (4) promoted to 1st. The payment of stakes and dividends are authorized in accordance with such decision.