Waikato BOP H 14 August 2025 – R4 – Kristina Denifostova

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 4, the Respondent K Denifostova admitted a breach of Rule 869(3)(b); namely that she drove carelessly near the 200m, when allowing her drive to shift outwards when activating the deafeners.

The Respondent endorsed the Information ‘I do admit the breach of the rule’ and confirmed she understood the Rule and the nature of the charge. Ms Denifostova was supported in the hearing by Mr J Dickie.

Rule 869(3)(b) provides:

No driver in any race shall drive carelessly.

Using available video footage, Senior Stipendiary Steward S Mulcay identified the horses involved in the incident namely, SECRETS ABOUND driven by K Denifostova, leading the field, with ADJOURNMENT driven by J Dickie on its back and DIXIELAND DELIGHT driven by A Poutama, three back on the pegs. Mr Mulcay said that after entering the straight, Ms Denifostova, crossed her reins and attempted to activate “the gear”.  He said that during this process, Ms Denifostova allowed her mount to shift wider on the track. He said that ADJOURNMENT, who was directly behind, looked to follow SECRETS ABOUND wider, before its Driver (J Dickie) straightened. Three back on the pegs, DIXIELAND DELIGHT attempted a marginal run to the inside of ADJOURNMENT, finding itself in restricted room and contacted the sulky wheel of that runner, with the wheel puncturing. Mr Mulcay said that Stewards spoke to Mr Dickie in regard to the incident, for the purpose of determining whether a protest should be lodged on behalf of ADJOURNMENT’S connections against the winner of the race DIXIELAND DIRECT, but Mr Dickie confirmed in interview, that what occurred in front of him and his own horse, may have contributed to having its sulky wheel contacted and on that basis, would not proceed withlodging a protest. Mr Mulcay said that this was the basis for the charge against Ms Denifostova.

Prior to the submissions of the Respondent, the Adjudicative Committee asked for further clarity as to the careless element of the charge. Mr Mulcay, in response to questions from the Adjudicative Committee, confirmed that Ms Denifostova, did not impede or interfere with any runner to her inside (ADJOURNMENT or DIXIELAND DELIGHT) and also did not interfere or impede with any runner to her outside.

Mr Mulcay said that Ms Denifostova’s horse shifting up the track, had a bearing on what occurred to the trailing runners (ADJOURNMENT and DIXIELAND DELIGHT). He also said that it was a Driver’s obligation in the home straight, to keep a straight course and that Stewards took issue with Drivers that allowed their horses to shift from the running line, to a wider position on the track, as it could impede other runners. Mr Mulcay said this was not a charge of carelessness causing interference, but carelessness due to Ms Denifostova losing control of her drive. Mr Mulcay said it was an unusual situation, but given the consequential effects, the Stewards thought a charge was warranted, which had been admitted.

On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Dickie said that Mr Mulcay had summed it up well, by saying it was a very unusual situation. Mr Dickie said that he couldn’t recall ever being involved in a charge of careless driving, where no horse had been interfered with.  He said in watching the film, Ms Denifostova’s drive had run off about two cart widths and given that Ms Denifostova had been warned for this previously, it could be something she could work on.

Decision:

The charge is admitted by the Respondent and is therefore deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Mulcay said that the RIB Guidelines pointed to a $300 fine or 2 day suspension for a first offence and the Stewards were not seeking any uplift to that.

Ms Denifostova indicated she would prefer a fine over a suspension.

Reasons for Penalty:

The Penalty Guide provides a penalty starting point of a $300 fine or a 2 day suspension for a first offence low level breach of careless driving.

While Ms Denifostova failed to maintain a straight course in the run home, she did not cause interference to her own or any other runner in the field. The shift wider was brief and occurred while she was attempting to activate the deafeners. The Adjudicative Committee does not believe that Ms Denifostova is culpable for what occurred behind her, as outlined by the Stewards. The charge of being careless, can only relate to the shifting of ground and in the instance, falls at the very low end. On this basis, the Adjudicative Committee feels that a generous discount from the starting point is warranted.

Conclusion:

Ms Denifostova is fined $200.