Waikato TR 13 September 2026 – R8 – Samantha Collett

Introduction:

Following the running of Race 8, Class A Rider Ms S Collett (PLOY) defended a charge of careless riding.

Particulars of the Charge

The Information alledged that she permitted her mount (PLOY) to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of DIGGER, which was checked passing the 150 metres.

The Rule

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

Evidence:

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”.

The Applicant, Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones advised the Adjudicative Committee that he intended to call two witnesses to prove the charge; namely Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham and the Rider of DIGGER, Mr Lawson-Carroll.

Witness Mr Oatham

In support of his evidence, Mr Oatham used the available race films .  In particular, he relied on the side and head-on films.  Mr Oatham referred to the two horses concerned in the incident, namely PLOY, who was racing outside and in front of DIGGER, who was on PLOY’S inside.

Mr Oatham stated that nearing the 150 metres, Ms Collett struck her mount with her whip and PLOY then shifted inwards and crossed DIGGER.  He said that Mr Lawson-Carroll had to check sharply to avoid the heels of PLOY.  He added that this placed Mr Lawson-Carroll in an awkward position for several strides. Mr Oatham concluded his evidence by pointing out that Ms Collett was only a bare length clear of DIGGER when she crossed and although she took corrective action, it was too late.

Under cross examination from Ms Collett, Ms Collett asked Mr Oatham whether he accepted her mount “changed legs” when shifting and Mr Oatham replied that it was irrelevant in terms of her shift.

Witness Mr Lawson-Carroll

Mr Lawson-Carroll confirmed that he was the Rider of DIGGER.  He stated that near the 150 metres, he said that he was trying to hold on to third place and the outside horse (PLOY) interfered with him.  He said that it was only a length clear of him at the time of the shift.  In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Lawson-Carroll confirmed that the interference he suffered was the result of “the outside horse shifting into my running”.

Under cross examination, Ms Collett asked Mr Lawson-Carroll how many strides he had to take, to take hold of his mount.  In reply he stated “3 or 4 strides”.

Respondent Ms Collett

In her evidence, Ms Collett conceded that her mount had shifted ground and stated that the reason for shifting, was because her horse “changed legs”.

Summing Up

In summing up, Mr Jones said that in this case, Ms Collett was careless due to the following reasons:

1.  Mr Jones submitted that the film evidence and the account of Mr Lawson-Carroll were clear.
2.  Ms Collett was not sufficiently clear when shifting ground.
3.  Mr Lawson-Carroll has had to check his mount.
4.  Ms Collett should have kept her mount straight.

Ms Collett offered no further comments when afforded the opportunity to sum up her defence of the charge.

Decision and Reasons

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/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 under the circumstances.

The films establish that Ms Collett applied the whip on two occasions.  After the second strike, PLOY shifted inwards reasonably abruptly, into the running line of DIGGER.  As a result, Mr Lawson-Carroll was required to take evasive action and check his mount.  The interference potentially cost DIGGER the opportunity  to finish in third place.  PLOY won the race and DIGGER finished fourth.

Whether PLOY changed legs at the time of the incident is open to debate.  What is clear however, is that PLOY ran inwards after Ms Collett applied the second whip strike.  She then continued to ride forward, thereby taking the line of DIGGER.

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 Riders cross, they must be their own length and one other clear, as is indicated in clause (i) of the definition.

Penalty Submissions 

Mr Jones submitted that Ms Collett has two previous breaches of the Careless Riding Rule, from 806 rides in the past 12 months.  The most recent breach occurred on 5 September  2026, resulting in a 4-day suspension, which is due to commence after today’s racing and conclude after racing on 23 September 2026.

Mr Jones submitted that Stewards assessed this breach as being low to mid-range.

Ms Collett had nothing further to add.

Reasons for Penalty

The Adjudicative Committee assessed the level of carelessness as low to mid-range, which carries a starting point of 6 day’s suspension.  Although this was Ms Collett’s third breach within 12 months, the Adjudicative Committee accepted that she has maintained a very good riding record, having had 806 race rides during that period.  A one-day reduction was therefore applied to reflect that record.

The Adjudicative Committee considered whether an uplift was warranted on the basis that Ms Collett’s mount won the race.  Having regard to the manner in which PLOY won and the winning margin, the Adjudicative Committee determined that no uplift was required.

Ms Collett was entitled to defend the charge.  However, as the charge was defended, no discount was available for admission of the breach.

After considering all relevant factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a 5-day suspension was an appropriate penalty.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Ms Collett’s Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 5 days.  This will commence on 24 September 2026 and conclude after racing on 2 October  2026.