Waikato BOP H 24 December 2025 – R6 – AROSE

Immediately after the finish of Race 6, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay instigated a protest pursuant to Rule 869A(2) in that AROSE, driven by Mr P Ferguson, shifted in over the final stages, contacting the outside hind leg of ITS NOT KATHY, driven by Mr T Cameron, causing her to break.

The Judge’s initial placings were:

1st – LITTLE LILY (Mr A Poutama)
2nd – AROSE (Mr P Ferguson)
3rd – LINCOLN DOWN (Ms M Ranger)
4th – IT’S NOT KATHY (Mr T Cameron)

The margins were : 1 ½ length, 1 ½ length, ½ length

Mr Ferguson indicated that he wished to contest the protest.

Rule 869A(2) states:

‘When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse or its driver and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the horse interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse that, or whose driver caused the interference the Adjudicative Committee must, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, place the horse that, or whose driver, caused the interference immediately after the horse interfered with.’

Submissions

Mr Mulcay, who was the Informant, identified the horses AROSE and IT’S NOT KATHY, as the field entered the home straight. AROSE was leading and IT’S NOT KATHY was in the trail. At the passing lane, IT’S NOT KATHY moved into the passing lane and was improving and taking ground from AROSE. Near the 100m, AROSE shifted in, making contact with the off hind of IT’S NOT KATHY, who paced roughly and then broke at about the 60m mark, then continued on to gallop over the final stages and finished in 4th place.

Mr Mulcay submitted that the obligation on the lead horse on reaching the passing lane, is to leave full access to the passing lane to inside runners and the Stewards allege that AROSE has shifted down, causing interference.

Stewards further submitted, that the Breaking Horse Regulations do not apply, where a horse is in the incorrect gait due to interference, so there is a discretion.

Mr Cameron confirmed that interference occurred when AROSE contacted the back leg of his drive. He further confirmed, that he did not feel his drive had contributed to the interference and but for that interference, his drive IT’S NOT KATHY, would have beaten AROSE.

Mr Hollis, Trainer of IT’S NOT KATHY, submitted that he believed his horse would have run past AROSE, had it not been for the contact AROSE made with her hind leg.

Mr Ferguson admitted that in his view, there was no doubt that Mr Cameron’s drive IT’S NOT KATHY, was going to beat his drive AROSE, but Mr Cameron still has a duty to steer his drive. He further submitted, that his obligation is to leave the passing lane open, which he did, in fact in his submission, there were two horse widths available in the passing lane. He stated that his horse had moved, but Mr Cameron’s horse had moved out and contributed to the interference, and that to attribute the blame solely to his horse and relegate it, would be unjust.

Decision Discussion

The Rule calls for interference to have occurred; and for the Adjudicative Committee to be satisfied the horse interfered with would have beaten the horse which caused that interference. The Stewards allege that AROSE shifted in over the final stages, stroking IT’S NOT KATHY’s outside rear leg. Both Drivers admitted interference had occurred.

As a result of the interference, IT’S NOT KATHY paced roughly and broke. The incident occurred close to the finish. Both Drivers admitted that, but for the interference, IT’S NOT KATHY would have beaten AROSE. The margin between the horses was around two lengths.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that:

(a) Interference between the two horses occurred, and
(b) but for that interference, IT’S NOT KATHY would have beaten AROSE.

Decision

The Protest is upheld.

AROSE is relegated to fourth place and IT’S NOT KATHY is promoted to third place.

Revised placings are:

1st – LITTLE LILY (Mr A Poutama)
2nd – LINCOLN DOWNS (Ms M Ranger)
3rd – IT’S NOT KATHY (Mr T Cameron)
4th – AROSE (Mr P Ferguson)