Auckland TC 23 October 2026 – R6 – James Stormont

Background Information:

Following the running of Race 3, Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr S Wallis filed an Information alleging that the Driver of GO JIMMY CASSIDY, Mr J Stormont, breached Rule 869(2) in that he used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the run home.

Mr Stormont defended the charge.

Rule 869 provides that:

(2) No driver shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.

Evidence

At the commencement of the hearing, the proposed procedure was outlined by the Adjudicative Committee.

Witness – Mr S Wallis

Using the available video footage, Mr Wallis demonstrated the alleged breach. He identified GO JIMMY CASSIDY, driven by Mr Stormont who was racing in the trail behind the lead horse into the home straight.

Mr Wallis stated that Mr Stormont used his whip for the majority of the run home with more than a wrist-flicking motion, by engaging his elbow when applying several of his strikes.

Mr Stormont did not ask any questions of Mr Wallis in cross examination.

Respondent – Mr Stormont

In his evidence, Mr Stormont referred to ABMAN, driven by Mr D Butcher. He said that Mr Butcher was “doing the same thing as me” and questioned why Mr Butcher had not been charged.

Mr Stormont did not provide any evidence whatsoever concerning his own use of the whip. In particular, he did not comment on the number of strikes he applied, or explain why he engaged his elbow when delivering some of them.

Summing up

Mr Wallis submitted that, in the Stewards’ view, approximately 10 of the strikes applied by Mr Stormont were non-compliant.

Mr Stormont accepted that some of his strikes may have been non-compliant. However, he submitted that he was driving the hot favourite, which was paying $2, and stated: “If I didn’t drive him out, I would not be doing my job.”

Reasons for Decision:

The applicable standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Adjudicative Committee must therefore be satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Stormont used his whip with more than a wrist-only flicking motion.

In this context, a wrist-only flicking motion requires:

• no force to be generated through the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip;
• the forearm not to be raised beyond 45 degrees relative to the racing surface; and
• the whip not to be applied with overt force.

Having considered the race footage and the evidence of Mr Wallis and Mr Stormont, the Adjudicative Committee finds the charge proved.

The footage shows that Mr Stormont used his whip several times from the home turn to the finish. Allowing for pauses between some applications, approximately eight strikes were assessed as non-compliant.

The Adjudicative Committee accepts that, for the most part, the force used was moderate and Mr Stormont’s forearm was not raised beyond 45 degrees relative to the racing surface. However, he engaged his elbow when applying several strikes, which is not permitted under the Rule.

In Response to Mr Stormont’s Submission, the Adjudicative Committee does not accept that driving the hot favourite, which was paying $2, justified any use of the whip that did not comply with the Rule.

Decision:

The charge is found proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Wallis advised that Mr Stormont has one previous breach of the Rule within the reset period. This occurred on 1 October 2026 and he received a $250 fine for a low-level breach. In the interim, he has had 19 race drives.

Mr Wallis assessed this breach as being in the low to mid-range. He said that for a low-level breach, the Penalty Guide provides for a 3-day suspension.

Mr Stormont submitted that he has a pending engagement to drive in the Derby Prelude Race on 6 November 2026.  To enable him to take that drive, he asked whether a combined suspension and fine could be considered. He said that he could commence any proposed suspension immediately.

Reasons for Penalty:

Having considered the race footage and the submissions of Mr Wallis and Mr Stormont, the Adjudicative Committee assessed the breach as falling within the low-to-mid range.

The Penalty Guide distinguishes between the two levels as follows:

• Low-level breach: a driver inadvertently uses the old whipping style but promptly returns to a compliant style.
• Mid-level breach: a driver inadvertently reverts to the old style—through freehand driving, loose reining, and/or using more than a flicking motion—and continues in that manner for some distance, approximately 50 metres, before taking corrective steps.

For a second breach within the reset period, the starting point is a three-day suspension for a low-level breach and a five-day suspension for a mid-level breach.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

Mr Stormont could not be penalised for defending the charge. However, because he did not admit the breach, no credit was available for an admission. No aggravating factors were identified.

Request for a Combined Penalty

Given the total number of strikes and the finding that several were non-compliant, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a combined fine and suspension was not appropriate.

The Penalty Guide does not expressly provide for part of a suspension to be replaced by a fine. In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, a fine should not replace a suspension, either wholly or in part, merely as a matter of convenience. Compelling reasons would be required, and none were established in this case.

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

Conclusion:

Mr Stormont’s Licence to drive in races is suspended from after racing on 23 October 2026, until after racing on 6 November 2026.