Auckland TC 1 October 2026 – R6 (heard 2 October 2026 at Alexandra Park) – James Stormont

Background Information:

Following an investigation into Mr James Stormont’s use of the whip during the concluding stages of Race 6 at the Auckland Trotting Club Meeting at Cambridge Raceway on 1 October 2026, a charge filed was by Stipendiary Steward Mr C Lomey and the matter was adjourned for determination by the Adjudicative Committee.

The charge was subsequently heard at the Auckland Trotting Club Meeting at Alexandra Park on 2 October 2026.

The Respondent Mr Stormont admitted a breach of Whip Rule 869(2).

The particulars of the charge are that when driving YEAH NAH, he used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the run home. 

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.

“Wrist only flicking motion” means:

• Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip.
• The forearm is not raised beyond forty-five degrees relative to the racing surface.
• Not applying the whip with overt force.

Using the available video footage, Stipendiary Steward Mr Lomey demonstrated the breach. He identified YEAH NAH, driven by Mr Stormont, leading into the home straight before fighting on to finish second, one length behind the winner, MECHANICA (J Abernethy).

Mr Lomey stated that Mr Stormont used his whip with more than a wrist-flicking motion on at least three occasions, before returning to compliant use. He described one further strike as “marginal.”

Mr Stormont said that, during his many years as a Driver, he had always been taught to keep his hands down and his elbows raised. He explained that this approach “was drilled” into him and that he continues to struggle to adapt to the current whip-use requirements.

Decision:

The charge is admitted and therefore proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Lomey advised that Mr Stormont has a clear record under the Rule, but had received a warning for his whip use on 10 September 2026. On that basis, this charge is treated as a first breach, for the purpose of penalty setting.

Mr Lomey said that Stewards assessed the breach to be low level, due to Mr Stormont returning to a compliant style, following the breach. He said the Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a $300 fine or 2-day suspension, as penalty for a low-level breach.

Mr Stormont submitted that a fine was preferable to a suspension, as a suspension would have a greater impact on his current financial circumstances.

Reasons for Penalty:

Having considered the race footage of the concluding stages in the home straight, together with the submissions of Mr Lomey and Mr Stormont, the Adjudicative Committee assessed the breach as low level. The Adjudicative Committee found that at least three strikes were non-compliant and that at least one or two additional strikes were questionable. It noted that Mr Stormont took corrective action within 50 metres and returned to a compliant style. The Adjudicative Committee also observed that Mr Stormont’s forward hand position tended to elevate his elbows, accentuating the appearance of his whip use. He therefore needs to make a greater effort to adjust this aspect of his driving style.

A low-level breach is when a driver inadvertently uses the old whipping style before promptly returning to the compliant style.

The Penalty Guide recommends a 2-day suspension or $300 fine, as the starting point penalty for a low-level breach.

After considering all relevant factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined that a fine was the appropriate penalty.

• Aggravating factors: None were identified, so no uplift was warranted.
• Mitigating factors: Mr Stormont’s admission of the breach and his good record warranted a combined discount of $50.

After applying the $50 discount, the resulting penalty was a fine of $250.

Conclusion:

Mr Stormont is fined $250.