Auckland TR 11 December 2025 – R4 – VICTORIOUS WARRIOR
ID: RIB61683
Animal Name:
VICTORIOUS WARRIOR
Code:
Thoroughbred
Race Date:
11/12/2025
Race Club:
Auckland Thoroughbred Racing
Race Location:
Ellerslie Racecourse - 100 Ascot Ave, Ellerslie, Auckland, 1050
Race Number:
R4
Hearing Date:
11/12/2025
Hearing Location:
Ellerslie - Auckland TR
Outcome: Protest Dismissed
Penalty: N/A
Evidence – Protest
Following the running of Race 4, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest per Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Rider Mr R Hutchings alleged that horse No. 8 VICTORIOUS WARRIOR (M Cameron) placed 1st by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse No. 5 LAGISQUET (R Hutchings) placed 2nd by the Judge.
The alleged interference was said to have occurred in the final straight, over the concluding stages of the race.
The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:
1st No. 8 VICTORIOUS WARRIOR
2nd No. 5 LAGISQUET
The official margin between 1st and 2nd was a short 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”.
Interference is defined as:
- a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
- a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
- a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
Submissions for Decision
Prior to hearing submissions from the respective parties, the Adjudicative Committee explained the key elements of the Protest Rule, with particular reference to the fact that two limbs had to be proven for the protest to be successful. First, that interference occurred; and second, without it, the affected horse would have won.
The race films were shown and the two horses involved identified.
Mr Hutchings, the Rider of LAGISQUET, said that he “spotted” the winner 2 lengths from the top of the straight and almost run him down over the concluding stages. He said interference occurred twice in the run home. First, near the 50 metres, where he said the race winner has shifted out, made contact and “taken me off my line”. Then second interference he said occurred two strides from the finish, which he said stopped his momentum.
Ms Mahoney, Trainer of LAGISQUET, said she agreed with Mr Hutchings’ submission. She added that contact was made on several occasions.
Mr Cameron, Rider of VICTORIOUS WARRIOR, accepted he shifted ground and said that there was “a little bit of contact”, then stayed on a straight line to the finish. He referred to the mowing strips on the track and pointed out that LAGISQUET also shifted inwards. With regards to the alleged second point of contact, Mr Cameron said that this occurred passing after crossing the winning post.
Mr Wiles, Trainer of VICTORIOUS WARRIOR, agreed with Mr Cameron’s assessment of the incident. He also agreed the two horses bumped, but said that LAGISQUET also shifted inwards, and they both had every opportunity to win the race.
Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones, outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference. He said that both horses from early in the straight have shifted in. He said that both horses did come together 6 to 7 strides prior to the winning post and then both ran to the line free of interference. He said that some interference did occur when Mr Cameron’s mount shifted outwards and on that basis, the protest has merit. He concluded that the Adjudicative Committee would need to show, but for the interference, the second placed horse would have beaten the winner.
Reasons for Decision
Following the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee must firstly be satisfied that interference occurred; and secondly, if interference is proven, the horse interfered with would have beaten the other runner, had such interference not occurred.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means ‘more probable or than not’ that the horse interfered with, would have beaten that runner.
After considering all the evidence, the Adjudicative Committee found that early in the run home, both horses shifted inwards. VICTORIOUS WARRIOR shifted out near the 50-metre mark and made light contact with LAGISQUET, who was finishing the race off strongly. Interference is therefore established. However, there was no apparent loss of momentum and from that point onwards, both horses had a clear run to the finish, albeit they raced in tight quarters and VICTORIOUS WARRIOR maintained ascendency.
Therefore, after considering in particular the nature of the interference; manner in which both horses finished the race off over the final 50 meters and the margin of a short head, the Adjudicative Committee could not be comfortably satisfied that had the interference not occurred, LAGISQUET would have finished in advance of VICTORIOUS WARRIOR.
Accordingly, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is dismissed.
Decision
The protest is dismissed, and the Adjudicative Committee authorises the payment of dividends and stake money per its decision.
Decision Date: 11/12/2025
Publish Date: 12/12/2025