Auckland TR 26 December 2025 – R6 – HE WHO DARES
ID: RIB62407
Animal Name:
He Who Dares
Code:
Thoroughbred
Race Date:
26/12/2025
Race Club:
Auckland Thoroughbred Racing
Race Location:
Ellerslie Racecourse - 100 Ascot Ave, Ellerslie, Auckland, 1050
Race Number:
R6
Hearing Date:
26/12/2025
Hearing Location:
Ellerslie Racecourse - 100 Ascot Avenue Remuera Auckland
Outcome: Protest Dismissed
Penalty: N/A
Background:
Following the running of Race 6 the Group 2 ‘Jimmy Schick Shaw’s Auckland Guineas’, an Information was lodged instigating a protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant, Trainer of 3rd placed AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Ms Pam Gerard, alleged interference in the final straight. The Information was worded as follows:
‘Alleged interference over the concluding stages’
The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:
1st WELL WRITTEN
2nd HE WHO DARES
3rd AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
4th BULGARI
The margin between 2nd and 3rd place was 1 1/4 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 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 pertinent Rule was read to those present.
Evidence:
Prior to hearing submissions, Stewards showed all available film identifying the incident, alleged interference and runners involved.
By way of input, Mr Dee asserted that had HE WHO DARES not moved out to the extent to which it did, he would definitely have been able to ‘challenge ‘ for second position. Ms Gerard commented that HE WHO DARES had moved out significantly and that in the last 50 metres, Mr Dee had been unable to ride his mount out. Mr Bosson conveyed that in his view, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was coming to the end of his run and that the movement of both AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and WELL WRITTEN, had contributed to the outcome of the race. Mr Walker, whilst acknowledging interference, conveyed that given the margin of 1 1/4 lengths, along with it’s location (50 metres from the line), upholding of the protest was not warranted.
Mr Oatham commented that Stewards considered the protest had merit in the light of identified interference, however given that same took place approximately 5 strides from the line, there was doubt as to the upholding of a protest.
Reasons for Decision:
In accordance with the requirements of the Rule, the Adjudicative Committee, if upholding a protest, must firstly establish that interference occurred; 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 in respect of interference. Based upon the definition, film viewed and submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined that interference was evident. HE WHO DARES moved significantly, although this is largely immaterial, as much of this movement was clear of runners. Interference to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION did occur at the 50 metre mark, with HE WHO DARES primarily culpable. Prior to this point, there had been significant jostling between AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and WELL WRITTEN. Given the extent and location of the interference, there was doubt as to whether, in the absence of such interference, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION would have finished ahead of HE WHO DARES. On that basis, the protest was dismissed.
Decision:
The protest was dismissed, with stakes and dividends paid in accordance with the Judge’s placings.
Decision Date: 26/12/2025
Publish Date: 03/01/2026