Winton HRC 26 July 2026 – R5 – HONEYCOMB

Mr N Williamson, the driver of RISE UP N DANCE, placed 2nd by the Judge in Race 5, alleged that HONEYCOMB (Mr P Hunter) placed 1st by the Judge, shifted out in the run home causing interference to RISE UP N DANCE.

Judge’s placings were:

1st   HONEYCOMB

2nd  RISE UP N DANCE

3rd   SHERGAR

4th   RAKAMICK

The winning margin was a head.

The protest Rule is 869A, subs (2) of which states: “When a placed horse or its driver causes interference to another placed horse 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.”

Evidence

Mr Williamson alleged that Mr Hunter, driving HONEYCOMB, had shifted up the track in the run home when racing to the inside of his horse, RISE UP N DANCE. As a consequence, he said he had been forced over extra ground. Mr Williamson acknowledged he had not stopped driving RISE UP N DANCE. He believed Mr Hunter had shifted out some 2 cart widths in the straight. He said he had been using the right rein to keep RISE UP N DANCE off HONEYCOMB, which had kept running out. There had been no contact.

Mr Hunter disputed that he had shifted out 2 cart widths. He agreed he had shifted out a little and believed it was 1 ½ cart widths at best. He emphasised that Mr Williamson had never stopped driving his horse. He had not held him up “one bit”. Mr Williamson had had all of the straight to get past HONEYCOMB and had not.

Mr Renault was asked to give expert evidence in his role as the lead Stipendiary Steward on the day. He said there had been movement outwards. It was a short distance during the majority of the run home. He thought that Mr Williamson may have had to correct his horse briefly by pulling on the right rein on 2 occasions in the run. He referred to the winning margin being a head.

Reasons for Decision

In determining the protest, the first issue is whether there was interference to RISE UP N DANCE by HONEYCOMB. That that horse has shifted wider on the track in the home straight is acknowledged by the witnesses. This is supported by the films. The movement is some 1 ½ cart widths over the length of the home straight. Mr Williamson has been forced to race wider on the track than he would have wished, but he did not stop driving RISE UP N DANCE, as he has acknowledged. Mr Hunter’s outwards movement has not interfered with Mr Williamson’s progress, although it is evident he did pull on the right rein briefly on 2 occasions. The films do not evidence any loss of momentum. Both horses finished the race strongly.

In determining whether RISE UP N DANCE would have finished ahead of HONEYCOMB, regard is had to the extent of the interference and that it was in the home straight, the head margin, and the manner in which the two horses finished the race. Having regard to these matters, the Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied that had the interference not occurred, RISE UP N DANCE would have finished in front of HONEYCOMB.

Decision

The protest is dismissed.

Placings are as the horses crossed the line. Stakes and dividends are to be paid accordingly.