Waikato TR 2 May 2026 – R3 – Sam Collett

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 3, Class A Rider Ms S Collett defended a charge of careless riding which was filed by Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones, pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).

The Information alleged that as the Rider of PRINCESS ELSA, she permitted her mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of WE FOUND LOVE (J Nishizuka), which was dictated inwards resulting in ATLANTA GOLD (E Nicholas) being checked near the 1100 metres.

Ms Collett acknowledged she understood the Rule and confirmed that she denied the breach.

Rule 638(1)(d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

It was explained to the parties that for the charge to be proven the following elements had to be established:

1. That Ms Collett permitted her mount to shift inward.
2. That at the time of the shift, she was not sufficiently clear of WE FOUND LOVE (J Nishizuka).
3. That WE FOUND LOVE was dictated inwards; and
4. That ATLANTA GOLD (E Nicholas) was checked as a consequence.

At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Collett confirmed that she wished to defend the charge. She endorsed the Information “I do not admit the breach of the rule.”

Mr Jones advised the Adjudicative Committee that he intended to call three witnesses to prove the charge: namely Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr A Dooley, the Rider of WE FOUND LOVE, Mr Nishizuka and the Rider of ATLANTA GOLD, Ms Nicholas.

Witness Mr Dooley

In support of his evidence, Mr Dooley used the available race films, which included head and side-on. He pointed to the start of the race, where Ms Collett’s mount drew barrier 7. On her inside was WE FOUND LOVE and on the inside of that runner, was ATLANTA GOLD.

Mr Dooley said that at the start of the race, several runners were tardy to begin. He said that Ms Collett went forward from the barrier on an inward movement. He said that Ms Collett dictated Mr Nishizuka’s mount inwards and he was unable to fully relieve the pressure, which resulted in ATLANTA GOLD being checked. He said that Mr Nishizuka had to take evasive action. In response from a question from Ms Collett, Mr Dooley said he accepted that she corrected her mount, but it was too late. He also accepted that her inward shift was gradual.

Witness Ms Nicholas

Ms Nicholas was supported at the hearing by Class A Rider Ms L Satherley. She confirmed that she was the Rider of ATLANTA GOLD. She stated that Mr Nishizuka “has come right over into my line.”  She said that she had to take evasive action and that he (Mr Nishizuka) was barely a length clear of her mount at the time.

Witness Mr Nishizuka

Mr Nishizuka was supported at the hearing by Trainer Ms P Gerard. He confirmed that he was the Rider of WE FOUND LOVE. He said that 100m from the start of the race, he received pressure from the outside runner (Ms Collett’s mount). He said that he went to the inside because of this and Ms Nicholas had to check her mount. He said that at the time of being pressured by Ms Collett’s mount, she was only ¾ of a length clear. In response to a question from Ms Collett, Mr Nishizuka said that when he jumped from the barrier, there was contact between his mount and Ms Collett’s.

Respondent Ms Collett

Ms Collett stated that her mount jumped well from the barrier. She said that she believed she followed Mr Nishizuka across and there was always a gap between both horses. She said there was no intent or carelessness on her part.

Summing up

Mr Jones

In summing up, Mr Jones said that in this case, Ms Collett was careless because she was not her own length and one clear of Mr Nishizuka’s mount, when she shifted inwards. Mr Nishizuka was dictated inwards and if he had not relieved the pressure, he may have gone onto the heels of Ms Collett’s mount.

Ms Collett

In summing up her case, Ms Collett said that her mount jumped awkwardly from the barrier and she did make an effort to straighten. She submitted that Mr Nishizuka contributed to the incident and that the racing manners of both horses were a factor. She added that she had no intent.

Reasons for Decision 

After reviewing the race films and evaluating the evidence, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved to the requisite standard, namely on the balance of probabilities. This simply means it was more probable than not, that Ms Collett was in breach of the Careless Riding Rule.

A Rider is deemed to be careless when he or she fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference, or causes interference by misjudgement or mistake. The test being whether the Rider exercised the degree of care and attention that a Rider would exercise, if placed in the same circumstances. On this occasion, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that Ms Collett did not exercise the necessary care required of her when shifting inwards.

For the charge to be proven, it is not necessary for the Stewards to prove that she intended to cause interference. It is accepted that the shift was an error of judgement.

Ms Collett was not totally to blame and perhaps a Rider more experienced than Mr Nishizuka, may have been able to read the situation and take pre-emptive action. But ultimately, Ms Collett shifted in and dictated his mount, when not the required distance clear. In such circumstances, Mr Nishizuka had the right of way, his rightful running line was impeded, and had he not relieved the pressure from his outside, he may well have gone on to the heels of Ms Collett’s mount.

The head on films show that there was a gap between both runners, but the side on film clearly establish that Ms Collett was barely ¾ length clear when crossing.

Guidance can be taken from Rule 642(2)(b) which relates to ‘interference’ for the purpose of Rules 637 and 642:

(b) interference is defined as:

(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;

(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or

(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.

The above definition of interference relates to Rules 637 and 642, but it is a well-established Rule of practice that when Rider’s cross, they must be their own length and one other clear as is indicated in clause (i) of the definition.

Decision

The charge was found proved.

Penalty Submissions 

Mr Jones stated that this incident marks Ms Collett’s first breach of the Rule within the past twelve months, during which time she has had 762 race rides. He further noted that her riding record is exceptionally commendable and worthy of recognition.

Mr Jones added that Stewards assessed this breach as being in the low range, with some mitigating factors in Ms Collett’s favour.

In response, Ms Collett sought to defer any proposed suspension until after racing on 9 May 2026.

Reasons for Penalty

The Adjudicative Committee has assessed Ms Collett’s level of carelessness to be in the low range, which has a starting point of 5 days suspension. Her culpability with regards to this breach, is at the low end.

Ms Collett’s has an outstanding riding record. Few, if any Senior Riders, can claim to have ridden over 760 races, all over New Zealand, without blemish. For that, she is entitled to due recognition. Accordingly, she is afforded a two-day reduction from the starting point.

While such a reduction is uncommon, it is not unprecedented. Therefore, after considering all the factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined a 3-day suspension to be an appropriate penalty in this instance.

Conclusion

Ms Collett’s License to ride in races is suspended for a period of 3 days. This will commence after racing on 9 May and conclude after racing on 14 May 2026.