R Tauranga 1 November 2025 – R6 – INSIDE OUT

Evidence

Following the running of Race 6, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Applicant Mr Robert Wellwood, Trainer of horse 7 OSTERIA, alleged that horse number 5 INSIDE OUT, placed First by the Judge, interfered with the chances of horse number 7 OSTERIA, placed Second by the Judge.

The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight, around 50-metres from the finish.

The Judge’s provisional placings were as follows:

1st   No. 5

2nd  No. 7

3rd   No. 1

4th   No. 13

The official margin between first and second was a neck.

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.

Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Oatham referred the race films and demonstrated that at the 100-metre mark INSIDE OUT, who was racing on the inside of OSTERIA, commenced to shift towards the centre of the track.  Around the 50 – metre mark, he said that INSIDE OUT made contact with OSTERIA and OSTERIA was dictated about 4 horse-widths wider on the track. He believed that OSTERIA lost momentum and despite this, went on to finish a neck behind INSIDE OUT.

The Applicant Mr Wellwood, stated that his horse OSTERIA (ridden by Mr G Rooke) was clearly interfered with by INSIDE OUT (ridden by Mr S Weatherley), at around the 50-metre mark.  He said there was significant contact and his horse was shifted 3 or 4 horse widths wider, causing it to lose momentum and almost a length. Despite this loss of momentum, his horse still finished a neck behind INSIDE OUT. Without that interference, he believed his horse would have won the race.

The Rider of OSTERIA Mr Rooke, stated he agreed with the Applicant Mr Wellwood. He further stated, his mount OSTERIA and INSIDE OUT, were racing head-to-head when the contact happened and that without the contact, he was sure he would have won.

The Respondent Ms Weatherley, Trainer of INSIDE OUT, stated that OSTERIA was heading in and while there was slight contact, Mr Rooke has never stopped riding his horse and INSIDE OUT has pulled away comfortably to win. Ms Weatherley further stated that OSTERIA was never going to win, that OSTERIA was clearly headed by INSIDE OUT.

The Rider of INSIDE OUT Mr Weatherley, stated his horse was never going to be beaten, he is a green horse, he has come out to meet OSTERIA and has got pretty close. He further stated, that Mr Rooke has never stopped riding at any stage. Mr Weatherley stated, that in the last 30 or 40 metres, he stood up and corrected his mount, so it’s not like he was riding at full vigour and his horse has still pulled away and won comfortably and even if they had run another 200-300 metres, his horse would still have won and the margin is too significant to say otherwise.

Mr Rooke replied by stating that he didn’t stop riding, as they were racing for first and second. He has gone down three quarters of a length as a result of the interference and has been beaten a neck.

At the request of the Adjudicative Committee, Stipendiary Steward Mr Jones outlined the Stewards’ interpretation of the alleged interference, that INSIDE OUT began to shift out around the 100-metre mark and interference occurred around the 50-metre mark, where OSTERIA is forced 4 horse widths wider and does appear to lose momentum in that shift, so it’s clear a level of interference has occurred. It has cost OSTERIA momentum and the protest has strong merit.

Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the requirements of the Protest Rule, the Adjudicative Committee 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.

After hearing submissions and reviewing the video footage, the Adjudicative Committee established that INSIDE OUT shifted 4 horse-widths and in doing so, caused interference with OSTERIA, who was shifted 4 horse widths wider on the track, and as a result, losing momentum.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that INSIDE OUT did interfere with the chances of OSTERIA, and having considered the degree and nature of the interference, that OSTERIA was shifted 4 horse widths out losing momentum, the way both horses finished the race off and the close margin (a neck) at the finish, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that, free of interference, OSTERIA would have beaten INSIDE OUT.

On that basis, in the exercise of the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, the protest is upheld.

Decision

The protest was upheld and the amended placings were:

1st   No. 7

2nd  No. 5

3rd  No. 1

4th  No. 13

The Adjudicative Committee authorised the payment of stakes and dividends in accordance with its decision.