Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 10 February 2026 – Bill Jacobson

EVIDENCE:

The Respondent Class A Rider, Bill Jacobson, admitted a breach of Rule 800(1) alleging that “On the 30th of November 2025 at Cromwell racecourse, Class A jockey Bill Jacobson did misconduct himself by intentionally steering his mount to make contact with Apprentice Ayush Mudhoo following the running of race 8, and by being verbally abusive toward that rider in the weigh-room, in breach of rule 800(1) and subject to penalty under rule in 803(1) of the NZTR Rules of Racing.”

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule, the nature of the charge and confirmed his admission of the breach.

Rule 800(1) provides as follows:

A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct themself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Adjudicative Committee reserved its Penalty Decision. That Decision now follows.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Mr Irving provided a Summary Of Facts as follows;

1.The Respondent Bill Jacobson (Jacobson) is the holder of a Class A Jockey Licence issued by NZTR. He is 45 years old and commenced riding in NZ in the 2023/24 season. Prior to this he was a senior jockey in South Africa. NZTR records detail that he has had 598 rides for 49 wins riding in NZ.

Circumstances

2. Both Mudhoo and Jacobson were riding at the Otago Racing Club’s two day meeting at Cromwell. Following the running of race 8 on the second day, Sunday 30 November 2025, an altercation occurred upon pulling up.

3. Mudhoo was riding ‘On File’ (#8 – J & K Parsons) and finished 10th of 13 runners. Jacobson was riding ‘Ugo’ (#7 – A Furlong) and finished 9th.

4. As Mudhoo was turning his mount to head back to the birdcage, Jacobson deliberately rode ‘Ugo’ into the side of ‘On File’ with his horse’s nose contacting Mudhoo’s side, the impact causing him to become unbalanced in the saddle.

5. Jacobson made comment similar to “I told you not to f….n come in there” and the pair exchanged words.

6. The initial contact is captured on Trackside footage but then the coverage ends.

7. Mudhoo reacted by attempting to strike Jacobson with his whip, but missed, hitting Ugo forcefully in the top of the head area. As he recoiled his arm, he lost his grip on the whip dropping it.

8. Their remonstrations were loud enough to attract the attention of fellow riders and the pair continued to abuse each other as they cantered to the birdcage.

9. While in the weigh room the pair continued their disagreement. Jacobson told Mudhoo there was no room for him to shift in when racing to his outside down the back straight.

10. The discussion intensified and the pair came together face to face.

11. Steward M Davidson asked both riders to desist but was ignored. Their language and demeanour became more heated resulting in Mr Davidson stepping in and pushing them apart. To separate the pair, he directed Jacobson go to the jockeys room and Mudhoo to the Stewards room.

12. The Stewards review of the race footage did not reveal any breaches of the rules by Mudhoo during the running of the race.

13. A veterinary examination of ‘Ugo’ revealed no injury caused by the strike.

14. When interviewed by Stewards, Jacobson admitted trotting up to Mudhoo but denied it was intentional, stating that he was trying to stop his horse. He admitted that he “lost his cool” when Mudhoo “got in his face”.

15. When interviewed by Stewards, Mudhoo admitted to trying to hit Jacobson with his stick and accidentally striking the horse after Jacobson had ridden his horse into him. He stated that he lost his temper and went on with it in the weigh room.

Conclusion

16. Information A19865

The RIB investigation concludes that Jacobson has misconducted himself by driving his horse into Mudhoo at the end of the race and then continuing the conflict aggressively in the weigh room.

17. Jacobson has two previous race day behaviour type charges in the last five years when riding in South Africa.

Mr Irving provided written statements from Chief Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham and Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mark Davidson who were present and officiating at the Cromwell meeting, as follows:

Chief Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham

I was present in the weighing area post race standing next to the scales and was unaware of any issues or incident until some comments from riders weighing in that something had occurred pulling up after the race (Tina Comignaghi and Kylie Williams are the two I can recall and possibly Brett Murray).

Around this time I also became aware of a commotion which quickly became apparent was a loud verbal altercation between apprentice Ayush Mudhoo and senior rider Billy Jacobson. Ayush was visibly very agitated and angry, with Mark Davidson then attempting to separate the two who were standing chest to chest at the entry to the weighing room. Billy Jacobson then walked towards the scales before starting to turn around and head back towards Ayush at which point I intervened and stopped him from doing so.

Ayush normally has a very quiet personality and I found it out of character for him to become so angry and agitated.

Subsequent interviews revealed that Billy Jacobson had taken exception to the riding of Ayush during the race although Stewards review of films did not reveal anything untoward. Billy then appeared to have ridden his horse into the side of Ayush’s mount on pulling up although witness accounts and film footage were not overly conclusive as to how exactly this occurred. Tina Comignaghi did appear to have the best view and described it as “not something I would have done”. Billy and Ayush had different versions of this part of the incident but all agreed that Ayush had then reacted and attempted to strike Billy with his whip but missed and struck the head of Billy’s mount before then dropping his whip.

The conduct of both riders both during the incident post race on the track then through the birdcage and into the weighing room were well below the standard expected of licensed persons and in my view amount to serious misconduct.

Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mark Davidson

Cromwell Incident Post Race 8 on 30th November 2025

I was the Chairman of the Stewards panel on Sunday 30th November 20025. Other members of the panel were John Oatham, Rebecca Haley and Peter Meulenbroek. Mr Oatham and I watched the race upstairs in the viewing area in the grandstand whilst Miss Haley and Mr Meulenbroek viewed the race in the steward’s room. The race appeared to proceed as normal. The race was scheduled to run at 4.10 p.m.

After the race I entered the birdcage from the stand with Mr Oatham. As I was checking the horses in the first I became aware that anything had happened when jockey T Comignaghi made a comment about Mr A Mudhoo’s behaviour on pulling his mount up. Shortly after that an agitated Mr Jacbson approached me about the behaviour of Mr Mudhoo in the race alleging that Mr Mudhoo (ON FILE) had attempted to shift into Mr Jacboson’s line (UGO). He then went to weigh in about the same time as Mr Mudhoo was weighing in. As they entered the weigh room a heated argument started. Mr Oatham was already present supervising the weighing in process. As I entered the weigh room Mr Jacobson was telling Mr Mudhoo there was no room for him to shift in when racing to his outside down the back straight. As I was standing behind them the discussion got more intense and Mr Mudhoo aggressively approached Jacobson. I had asked them both to desist but was ignored, as things got more intense Mr Jacobson swore at Mr Mudhoo who by now was very agitated and at this stage I stepped in having to push them apart.

I sent Mr Jacobson back to the jockeys room and Mr Mudhoo to the stewards room to cool down. I then viewed films of the race but was satisfied that Mr Mudhoo had not committed any breach of the rules. I then spoke to other riders who advised Mr Mudhoo had struck the mount of Mr Jacobson across the head with his whip. There was some allegation that he then threw the whip at Mr Jacobson however others believe he may have dropped it but everyone was clear the whip had very firmly struck UGO across the head.

On viewing available films post race there was no available footage of the horse being hit however the films are clear that Mr Jacobson had ridden his mount up to Mr Mudhoo’s mount and a verbal exchange had ensued. My assessment of the video footage available is that clearly Mr Jacobson’s mount has stopped well behind the others and this point he has ridden forward to confront Mr Mudhoo and his mount has made contact with Mr Mudhoo’s horse. Jacobson denies he deliberately rode in to ON FILE and claims Mudhoo turned his horse into him.

Following this I conducted interviews of jockeys May, Williams and Comignaghi who all witnessed the forceful strike by Mudhoo across the head of the horse. Miss Haley and the vet Peter Gillespie attended the horse UGO and Miss Haley has some photos of the whip mark in the head region.

When interviewed Mr Mudhoo who was assisted by Jason Laking and his boss Andrew Carston, admitted he had struck the horse across the head by accident as his intention was to strike Jacobson. Unfortunately it is unclear what was said at the initial contact on pulling up in the back straight but clearly Mr Mudhoo became upset and then struck out with his whip.

The following race which was race 9, Mr Jacobson became very animated again alleging that there had been some more foul riding from Mr Mudhoo after the winning post when a number of runners came together and were buffeted and unbalanced. Stewards footage was clear that
although Mr Mudhoo’s mount shifted out after the winning post there was as much movement from an outside runner and this was dealt with in the stewards room.

Jacobson when interviewed denied any wrongdoing. He was adamant that Mudhoo should of showed him respect as he is a senior rider and Mudhoo is an apprentice. He said his only intent was to make sure Mr Mudhoo learnt that he could not shift in when he believes he was attempting to.

Both were then advised there behaviour was unacceptable and that the matter would be further investigated and that charges were likely particularly Mudhoo who admitted he had accidentally struck the UGO over the head. They were both advised to ensure that this rift does carry on any further.

I have forwarded copies of the interviews I have on my phone to Senior Investigator Simon Irving.

This is the best recollection of yesterday’s incident.

THE VIDEO EVIDENCE:

Video replays were shown to the hearing. Using a split screen, one replay showed the field pulling up past the winning post after the race. Mr Irving pointed out Mr Jacobson’s mount, which could be seen at the back of the field, some distance behind the other runners, having been the first to pull up, Mr Irving said. On another replay, Mr Irving pointed out Mr Mudhoo’s mount, amongst runners, turning to return to the birdcage and Mr Jacobson approaching. He then showed Mr Jacobson deliberately riding up to Mr Mudhoo, and the nose of Mr Jacobson’s runner contact Mr Mudhoo’s midriff. Mr Mudhoo could be clearly seen to “shift sideways” from the impact.

Mr Irving said that Mr Mudhoo was “pretty annoyed” at getting hit by Mr Jacobson’s horse. This was out of character for Mr Mudhoo, Stewards had confirmed to him. Mr Carston said likewise.

DECISION:

As the Respondent Mr Jacobson admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee finds the breach proved (Rule 915(1)(d) refers).

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Irving provided to the Adjudicative Committee Penalty Submissions as follows:

1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1 The Respondent Bill Jacobson is a Class A Licensed Jockey. He is 45 years old and commenced riding in New Zealand in the 2023/24 season. Prior to this, he was a senior jockey in South Africa. NZTR records detail that he has had more than six hundred rides in NZ.

1.2 Mr Jacobson has admitted a charge of breaching Rule 800(1) – Misconduct, following an incident at the conclusion of Race 8 at the Otago RC meeting at Cromwell on 30 November 2025.

1.3 The RIB Summary of Facts is attached and is largely agreed by Mr Jacobson, however there are some facts from the continuation of the incident in the weigh-in room that he disagrees with.

2. PENALTY: Purpose and principles

2.1 The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised briefly:

▪Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
▪In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
▪A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.
▪The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

3. PENALTY: RIB’s position

3.1 The RIB Penalty Guide for misconduct breaches are ‘fact dependent’. Misconduct can take many forms and in assessing the level of seriousness of the misconduct, any physical interaction must be considered as being at the higher end of the scale.

3.2 In this case, the RIB submits that Mr Jacobson has intentionally ridden his horse, from a considerable distance away, toward Mr Mudhoo’s horse and either directly or indirectly, contacted Mr Mudhoo with enough force to cause him to become unbalanced in his saddle.

3.3 In February 2023 NZTR published a Code of Conduct which establishes a set of standards of behaviour aimed at protecting the values of thoroughbred racing by ensuring that industry participants enjoy a safe, supportive and respectful environment. The overarching principle of the code is that each person must maintain the highest standards of behaviour at all times towards other participants. The conduct of professional jockeys, whether apprentices or seniors, who are the ‘faces’ of the sport, is of particular importance.

3.4 Apprentice A Mudhoo was also charged with misconduct for his role in the incident. His admitted breach was heard in a Penalty Hearing on 14 January 2026, when he was also dealt with on a drug related matter. He received a 4-week suspension for the misconduct charge.

In its Decision, the Committee commented:

1. Refer – Statement of account by Stewards J Oatham and M Davidson.

2. NRI RIB v A Mudhoo – copy of Written Reserved Decision dated 22 January 2026.

The video evidence in this case appeared to show that, as the horses were pulling up post-race and about to return to scale, Mr Jacobson steered his mount into Mr Mudhoo’s mount, having been upset by something that, the Adjudicative Committee was told, had occurred during the race. Mr Mudhoo could be seen to become unbalanced in the saddle, as a result of the contact.

3. While there appears to be no previous cases of similar fact and circumstance, the following cases may give guidance to the Adjudicative Committee:

NZTR v J Waddell (2006)

Apprentice jockey Waddell admitted a charge of misconduct in that after the winning post he deliberately directed his mount inward onto another riders mount, forcing that runner down toward the running rail, causing that rider to take evasive action. Waddell had come from a position four horse widths out to catch up with the other rider and contact made on three occasions.

In determining penalty, the Committee considered the mitigating factors of a good record and an admitted breach in issuing a suspension of just under 3 weeks and a $500 fine. The Committee commented:

The issue of provocation has been mentioned, but there is no place in racing for reactions such as this, especially in this instance where a group race was involved. In fixing penalty there will be a period of suspension, but allowance will be made for the above mitigating circumstances. The serious nature can be balanced by adding a monetary penalty.

RIB v B Murray (2023)

Senior jockey Murray admitted two charges of misconduct in that he used inappropriate language in the weigh-in area post-race and then a short time later, punched another rider, K Chowdhoory, once to the head area in the jockeys room. The Committee in reaching its decision on penalty, treated the two breaches as being part of the same course of conduct and imposed one penalty of a 4-week suspension. The Committee commented:

A further important factor is the existence of an element of provocation. The Respondent claimed that Mr Chowdhoory had jostled his mount during the running of the race, a claim that has some support from the Stewards’ Report on the race (see above). That would account for his frame of mind upon returning to scale. Then, shortly thereafter, Mr Chowdhoory said words to the Respondent which, possibly, provoked the physical altercation in the Jockeys’ Room. Having said that, of course, neither of those factors justified the Respondent’s responses.

These breaches could have been dealt with by way of fines, but it was the Respondent’s request that the Adjudicative Committee considers a suspension. The Adjudicative Committee has been made aware of his financial circumstances and deems a suspension to be appropriate. Any period of disqualification would be unduly harsh.

4. Archive Decision – Adjourned Inquiry J Waddell.

5. Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 6 May 2023 – R5 – Brett Murray.

6. MITIGATING FACTORS:

6.1 Mr Jacobson has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity and has cooperated with the process.

6.2 He has no previous conduct related, or any other NRI breaches since commencing riding in New Zealand in 2023.

7. AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

7.1 Mr Jacobson’s South African record is attached. Although the details are light, he appears to have had three behavioural related charges since March 2019.

7.2 Mr Jacobson initiated this series of events by deliberately riding his horse up and into Apprentice Mudhoo at the conclusion of the race. His initial action has resulted in Apprentice Mudhoo’s retaliation and then the continuation of the disagreement from that point on until the pair are separated in the weigh-in room by Stewards.

7.3 Mr Jacobson is a very experienced International Senior Rider who should act as a role model for Apprentice and Junior Jockeys. His perceived grievance from the riding of an apprentice during the running of the race should be raised through appropriate channels, and as highlighted in previous cases, provocation cannot justify the action he took.

8. SUBMISSION:

8.1 The RIB having considered the overall circumstances of the case and the mitigating and aggravating factors, submits the penalty should be a 4-week period of suspension.

8.2 No costs are sought.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS – RESPONDENT:

Mr Jacobson provided submissions on penalty as follows;

I appear before the Committee in relation to a charge of Misconduct arising from an incident after the running of the race involving jockey Ayush Muhdoo.

At the outset, I wish to state clearly that I accept responsibility for my actions. I acknowledge that what occurred fell below the standard expected of a professional jockey. I regret the incident and sincerely apologise to the Committee, the Stewards, and the wider racing industry for the negative impression it created.

I respectfully ask the Committee to take into account a personal factor that affected my ability to properly process and respond during the initial meeting when the charge and evidence were first presented to me.

I have dyslexia and, when under stress, I experience significant brain fog. In that situation, I struggled to fully absorb the information and to respond with a clear mind. As a result, I do not feel that I represented myself as clearly or effectively as I otherwise would have. I wish to note that Mr Irving conducted the process professionally and explained matters clearly; however, I still found the situation overwhelming at the time.

I do not raise this to avoid responsibility. Rather, I respectfully ask that it be taken into account when assessing how I dealt with the matter at the time the inquiry and charge were presented to me, and when considering my decision-making under pressure during the initial stages of the process.

I now wish to clearly set out my account of the incident.

I understand that the available footage may appear aggressive. I respectfully submit that the footage is best assessed when viewed in real time rather than in slow motion. When watched at normal speed, it more accurately reflects how the incident occurred in practice, including the pace of events and the limited time available to react. In real time, the contact appears brief and incidental, and better demonstrates that the moment unfolded quickly rather than as a deliberate or controlled action.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that I would never intentionally ride my horse into another jockey. Any contact that occurred was accidental, and I regret allowing my emotions to place me in that position.

At the time, my horse was transitioning from a trot to a canter. I urged my horse forward in an attempt to avoid delay and to draw close enough to jockey Muhdoo to speak to him about his riding in the race. As I did so, his horse moved in front of me unexpectedly. Despite my immediate efforts to restrain and stop my horse, my horse’s head lifted on the final stride, making it more difficult to stop at that moment. As a result, my horse’s head briefly made contact with the other rider. There was no body-to-body contact between the horses and no force behind the contact. It was purely that final stride which caused the incidental contact.

I reiterate that this contact was entirely unintentional and occurred in the heat of the moment.

I accept that riding up to another jockey after the finish and engaging in confrontation was inappropriate. In the moment, I was extremely frustrated and reacted emotionally. I was not sufficiently focused on exercising sound judgment, and I accept that I should have handled the situation differently. I deeply regret that I did not do so.

My intention at the time was to verbally reprimand jockey Muhdoo for what I believed to be dangerous riding and repeated provocation throughout the day. I now recognise that I should have walked away and addressed the matter solely through the appropriate channels.

By way of context, throughout the day I felt that jockey Muhdoo had been riding erratically, with several incidents that placed me at risk and negatively affected my races. On two occasions, I was required to take immediate evasive action to avoid potential incidents involving him. While necessary for safety, those actions ruined my races and contributed significantly to my frustration escalating over the course of the day. I do not suggest this excuses my conduct, but I submit it explains my emotional reaction.

I also wish to clarify that I do not accept that I was the sole aggressor in the events that followed. After returning to the weighing room, jockey Muhdoo approached me, swore at me, and got up into my personal space. As this was occurring, I asked Mr Davidson to please intervene and to observe what was transpiring, as I was attempting to have the situation diffused. I respectfully ask that this effort to seek assistance and de-escalation at the time be taken into account. While I acknowledge my own conduct, I submit that the incident was not one-sided and that I felt provoked.

As background only, I note that jockey Muhdoo was later charged and returned a positive drug test approximately two weeks after the incident. I do not suggest this was the cause of his riding on the day, nor do I raise it to attack his character. I submit it solely as context supporting my genuine concern at the time that his behaviour felt unpredictable and unsafe, which heightened emotions.

I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the significant impact that any suspension would have on my livelihood. I am a professional jockey whose income depends entirely on being able to ride. I am currently under financial strain due to visa-related costs and a recent relocation, which involved considerable expense and disruption. We are now downsizing our living arrangements to manage these pressures.

I also recommenced riding during the winter season, which is an exceptionally difficult time to re-establish momentum and secure consistent rides. Despite these challenges, I have worked hard to regain stability and make positive progress in my career. A suspension at this time would be extremely damaging both financially and professionally.

In mitigation, I respectfully ask the Committee to consider that:

• I pleaded guilty and accept responsibility;
• I have expressed genuine remorse;
• I did not intentionally attempt to cause harm;
• any contact after the finish was unintentional and occurred in the heat of the moment;
• this was an error of judgment, not a premeditated act;
• there was provocation and ongoing tension throughout the day;
• I attempted to raise the issue with a Steward immediately following the race; and
• a suspension would cause significant financial and career hardship.

For those reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee impose the most lenient penalty available and consider whether a fine, reprimand, or formal warning would be appropriate rather than a suspension. Alternatively, if a suspension is considered unavoidable, I ask that it be kept to the absolute minimum.

I can assure the Committee that I have learned from this incident. Should I face a similar situation in the future, I will not confront another rider and will report the matter solely through the appropriate channels.

Comparable NZ Misconduct Decisions (use as an appendix/list)

Lower-end Misconduct (often dealt with by fine)

1. Kevin Stott — Waikato TR, 31 Jan 2025 (Misconduct: offensive language in birdcage)
Penalty: $450 fine. Useful because it’s “heat of the moment” post-race behaviour in a public area, but still dealt with by fine.

2. Courtney Renee Barnes — Riccarton Park (Canterbury JC), 9 Jul 2025 (Misconduct after being dislodged in prelim)
Penalty: $500 fine. Useful as a “single-incident / admitted / remorse” type outcome.

3. Jasmine Fawcett — Whangarei RC, 18 Dec 2024 (Misconduct: struck mount in barriers)
Penalty: $750 fine. Useful because it shows a mid-range fine where conduct “looks bad” on film, but is still treated as fine-level in the right factual setting.

4. Leah Hemi — Riccarton Park (Canterbury JC), 15 Jan 2025 (Misconduct)
Penalty: $750 fine (listed as a Misconduct decision in her decision history). Useful as another reference point for a $750 fine level on misconduct.

Mr Jacobson also stated that he had attempted to apologise to Mr Mudhoo on more than one occasion, by phone and directly, which was confirmed by Mr Irving.

Mr Jacobson also requested a 10 day deferment on any suspension to allow him to fulfill his engagements.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of this nature is set out in the Penalty Guide as “fact dependent”.

In the racing industry environment, misconduct is a broad disciplinary concept covering behaviour that falls below the standards expected of licensed or registered participants, whether or not it occurs directly during a race.

It generally means abusive or unprofessional behaviour that brings racing into disrepute, undermines the integrity, safety or orderly conduct of the sport or breaches its Rules or standards.

The video evidence in this case appeared to show that, as the horses were pulling up post-race and about to return to scale, Mr Jacobson steered his mount at a trot, into Mr Mudhoo’s mount, having been upset by something that, the Adjudicative Committee was told by Mr Jacobson, had allegedly occurred during the race. When contact was made by UGO’s head to Mr Mudhoo’s body, he could be seen to become unbalanced in the saddle, as a result of the contact. No video coverage is available from that point. Mr Jacobson, in submissions, stated that he did not intentionally to ride his horse into Mr Mudhoo’s horse, merely wanting to speak to him, but his mount could not be restrained in time before making the contact with Mr Mudhoo.

Mr Jacobson and Mr Mudhoo continued to verbally abuse one another as they returned to scale and then in the Weighing Room, causing Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson, to intervene and push them apart.

Mr Mudhoo’s role in what happened has been dealt with in separate proceedings against him.  However, Mr Jacobson has admitted that he misconducted himself by his own actions. He has become upset, to a point of anger, to what he claimed were Mr Mudhoo’s actions during the race. The Stewards on the day reporting that Mr Mudhoo had not breached any Rules of Racing. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that it was possibly not Mr Jacobson’s intention to run his horse into Mr Mudhoo’s mount, but by trotting on after pulling up to confront Mr Mudhoo after the race, was a potential recipe for an altercation, which, as this Adjudicative Committee knows, has resulted in UGO’s nose coming into contact with Mr Mudhoo’s body, unbalancing him. His actions also resulted in his mount, UGO, being struck accidentally on the head by Mr Mudhoo, who was attempting to strike at Mr Jacobson.

Mr Jacobson accepts that he was not entitled to take matters into his own hands and concedes that he ought to have raised his concerns with Stewards, rather than the action he did take. While he may have felt aggrieved by the incident, confrontation after the finish was wholly inappropriate and created unnecessary risk for all participants.

The charge against Mr Jacobson, also alleges that he was “verbally abusive” to Mr Mudhoo in the weighing room, to which he has also admitted. The Adjudicative Committee certainly does not condone such behaviour, but following what took place on the racetrack, this could be viewed as part of the same course of conduct, and a continuation of the racetrack incident.

Aggravating factors are:

• Mr Jacobson’s South African penalty record, although the details are light, shows he appears to have had three behavioral related charges since March 2019.
• Mr Jacobson initiated this series of events by riding his horse up and into Apprentice Mudhoo at the conclusion of the race. His initial action has resulted in Apprentice Mudhoo’s retaliation and then the continuation of the disagreement from that point on, until the pair are separated in the weigh-in room by Stewards.
• But for Mr Jacobson’s actions following the race, this incident would not have occurred and could have been handled correctly by the appropriate authority.
• Mr Jacobson is a very experienced International Senior Rider who should act as a role model for Apprentices and Junior Jockeys. His perceived grievance of Mr Mudhoo’s riding during the running of the race, should be raised through appropriate channels, and as highlighted in previous cases, provocation cannot justify the action he took.

The Adjudicative Committee took the following mitigating factors into consideration:

• Mr Jacobson’s early admission of the breach and cooperation with the investigation.
• His clear record in regard to this Rule since arriving in New Zealand.
• Mr Jacobson’s genuine remorse and attempts to apologise to Mr Mudhoo.
• His Visa and financial situation.
• His submission that a suspension would cause significant financial and career hardship.

The Adjudicative Committee found some assistance in the previous cases referred to by Mr Irving in his penalty submissions. Of course, no two cases of misconduct are the same, but the cases referred to were helpful nevertheless.

In considering penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has also had regard to the usual principles of sentencing as follows:

• To punish Mr Jacobson for his offending.
• To deter others from committing similar offences.
• To reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question and, importantly in this case, the need to rehabilitate Mr Jacobson.

Taking into consideration all matters and weighing up all relevant factors, it is the decision of the Adjudicative Committee that the appropriate penalty in this case is a period of suspension of 3 weeks and a fine of $1,000.

Mr Jacobson’s application for a 10 day deferment of suspension is granted until after racing at Ashburton on 20 February 2026.

PENALTY:

The Respondent Mr Jacobson is suspended for a period of 3 weeks, from the conclusion of racing on 20 February 2026, up to and including 13 March 2026.

Mr Jacobson is also fined the sum of $1,000.

COSTS:

There will be no order as to costs.