Wanganui JC 19 January 2026 – R4 – BENERRO

Evidence

Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Kate Hercock (Rider of ALIYANA BELLE)  alleged that horse number 1 (BENERRO), placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse number 6 (ALIYANA BELLE), placed 2nd by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No.1   BENERRO

2nd  No.6   ALIYANA BELLE

3rd   No.3   THE  BLACK PRINCE

4th   No.4   CHIBRAH

The official margin between 1st and 2nd was:  3/4 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. Side-on, head-on and rear view videos were played.

Ms Hercock lodged a protest on the grounds that BENERRO dictated ALIYANA BELLE out over a significant amount of extra ground in the home straight, thereby denying her winning the race. She stated that, after entering the home straight, she moved up alongside BENERRO, who then rolled out onto her as a result of being struck with the whip. She asserted that this movement carried her 7–8 horse widths wider on the track, preventing her from fully riding her mount out and ultimately costing her the race.

Ms Clement supported this view, adding that if BENERRO had maintained a straight course, ALIYANA BELLE would have won.

The Rider of BENERRO, Ms S Collett, explained that she was desperately trying everything to keep her mount straight and, as a result, was unable to ride it out fully. She described herself as being “a passenger,” but maintained that ALIYANA BELLE was not going to pass her.

Mr Cole submitted that Ms Hercock was only required to stop riding for a single stride and, in his view, there was no realistic chance of ALIYANA BELLE beating BENERRO.

For the Stewards, Ms Selvakumaran stated that although ALIYANA BELLE was dictated over extra ground in the home straight, it was uncertain whether this had affected the race result.

Reasons for Decision

Under the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must first determine whether interference occurred and, if so, whether the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner had such interference not occurred.

After hearing submissions and carefully reviewing all video evidence, the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that ALIYANA BELLE was dictated wider on the track by the wayward manners of BENERRO. However, the videos, particularly the head-on footage, did not support Ms Hercock’s claim that she was unable to ride her mount out over the whole length of the straight. Although both horses were drifting out, Ms Hercock was able to continue riding until just prior to the winning post, when contact was made by BENERRO.  Ms Collett meanwhile, had stopped riding in an effort to keep BENERRO straight. Ms Hercock did not appear to be making up any ground on the winner.

The Adjudicative Committee therefore accepts that interference occurred, but, having considered the degree and nature of that interference, the finishing efforts of both horses, and the three-quarter-length margin at the finish, it is not satisfied that ALIYANA BELLE would have finished ahead of BENERRO, had the interference not taken place.

Decision

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed, and the Judges’ placings stand. The Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money in accordance with this decision.