Otaki-Maori RC 8 February 2026 – R5 – Jonathan Riddell

EVIDENCE:

Following the running of Race 5, the “VETS ON RIVERBANK MAIDEN”, Ms Selvakumaran presented an Information charging Mr J Riddell with careless riding, in breach of Rule 638(1)(d).

It was alleged that he allowed his mount SAND POINT to shift inwards near the 1000 metre mark, when insufficiently clear of CHARMING EMPEROR, ridden by Ms K Hercock, which was checked so as to go back onto IF BY MAGIC, ridden by Ms L Hemi, leading it to be hampered.

Mr Riddell did not admit the breach of the Rule and the hearing proceeded on a defended basis.

Ms Jillings illustrated her view from the race films.  About 400 metres after the start (near the 1000 metre mark), SAND POINT was racing about 5 horse widths from the rail.  CHARMING EMPEROR was racing inside it, about 3 horse widths out from the rail.  SAND POINT is directed inwards towards CHARMING EMPEROR when not 2 lengths clear, requiring Ms Hercock to take evasive action and requiring her to check her mount.  She led it to hamper Ms Hemi’s mount, which was behind.  Mr Riddell had no questions for Ms Jillings.

Ms Hercock’s evidence was that she had to check her mount near the 1000 metres mark as Mr Riddell’s mount came across her when not sufficiently clear.  She added that “to be fair, my horse was over racing and did not help itself.”  (The Adjudicative Committee notes that that related to the degree of the check, not to any deviation from its entitled run).

Mr Riddell’s evidence, essentially was that he “thought I was clear” and had seen Ms Hercock “taking a hold”, so believed he could move into a clear gap.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

Ms Hercock’s mount may have been over racing but was entitled to maintain its line as it did. A gap had not developed to which Mr Riddell would have been entitled.  It may be that he hoped, or expected, it to occur but until or unless it did, he was not entitled to angle in when not sufficiently clear.  The race film clearly depicts him looking inwards to his left at least 3 times over 75-100 metres when racing outside Ms Hercock’s mount.  He was aware that he could not cross her horse until the required distance existed.  It never occurred and his “belief” he was clear was his error of judgement.  That omission comprised, in the circumstances, careless riding.

DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

The Informant advised that Mr Riddell had had 328 rides in the past 12 months, with 4 previous careless riding breaches over that period, for which various periods of suspension (3-6 days) were imposed.  She confirmed that this breach fell into the low end category.

Mr Riddell made no submissions other than to accept he had no firm riding commitments and could take any period of suspension from today, 8 February 2026.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

From a starting point of 5 days’ suspension, the Adjudicative Committee has accepted that some mitigating extenuating factors exist.  Apart from the breach being at the very low end, it arose only because Mr Riddell mistakenly believed he was sufficiently clear.  It is clear from the race films that he was mindful of his obligations, by looking to his inside at least 3 times.  His error was one of judgement, not deliberately ignoring his obligations, which are well known to him.  A reduction of 1 day is afforded.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Mr Riddell’s Licence to ride is suspended for 4 National Riding Days, to commence at the conclusion of racing on 8 February 2026 and to finish at the conclusion of racing on 15 February 2026.