Wellington RC 6 December 2025 – R4 – Erin Leighton

EVIDENCE:

Mr Oatham presented an Information to the Adjudicative Committee alleging that Ms Leighton attempted to weigh out for her mount IKAN in Race 4 when wearing a modified body protector, in breach of Rule 610(4).

Ms Leighton admitted the breach of the Rule.

Rule 610(4) provides:

“A Rider may not wear or have in their possession a body protector or a skull cap that has been modified in any way”.

The established facts were that when Ms Leighton, the Rider of IKAN, designated to carry 54kgs, presented at the scales to weigh out, she was checked and found to be wearing a body (chest) protector that had been modified by removal of all its padded protection panels.

Ms Leighton’s explanation to the Adjudicative Committee, was that she “did not believe in the use of such protectors” and because of her “past injuries and uncomfortable body issues”, did not like wearing them.

DECISION:

As the charge was admitted, it was deemed proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Oatham explained that the essence of the Rule is to ensure protection for Riders.  And he said it was very concerning if Ms Leighton’s explanation indicated it was her “usual” practice.  He referred to a recent breach of this Rule by Rider B May, for which a fine of $800 was imposed.

Apart from her explanation referred to above, Ms Leighton made no other submissions.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee is not able to accept Ms Leighton’s explanation as credible.  Indeed, if truthful, it would be aggravating as meaning that she does not wish to wear the protector if it is not modified.  If that was in fact the case, it could not assist her over this offence, as it meant she was intending to compete in the race without such protection.  The probable explanation (and this is what occurred in Mr May’s case) was to enable her to meet the 54kg weight the horse was to carry, that (if not apprehended) she intended not to wear a properly constructed vest in the race.

However, whatever the explanation, the fact remains this was improper and, dishonest.  The Rule is designed for Rider safety reasons.  A deterrent penalty (both specific for Ms Leighton and general to ensure other Riders comply), is necessary.

CONCLUSION:

Given the importance of Rider protection, Ms Leighton is fined $1,000.