Auckland TR 31 January 2026 – R3 – Wiremu Pinn

Introduction

Following the running of Race 3, Class A Rider Mr W Pinn defended a charge of careless riding which was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).

Particulars of the charge

That Rider W Pinn directed his mount (LIECHTENSTEIN) inwards entering the final straight, making contact with SCOLERA on a number of occasions until near the 250 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, Mr Pinn confirmed that he wished to defend the charge. He endorsed the Information “I do not admit the breach of the rule.”

Deputy Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones advised the Adjudicative Committee that he intended to call two witnesses to prove the charge: namely Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr A Dooley and the Rider of SCOLERA, Ms J Fawcett.

Witness Mr Dooley

In support of his evidence, Mr Dooley referred to the available race films. The head-on, rear-on and turn camera angles were shown.

Mr Dooley said that rounding the final bend into the home straight, SCOLERA (J Fawcett) was on the rails, with LIECHTENSTEIN on its outer. Both horses were on level terms. Ms Fawcett angled her mount off the rails and contacted LIECHTENSTEIN, who was forced wider on the track and Rider Mr Pinn, was unbalanced.

Following this, Mr Pinn directed his mount inwards, and he continued to ride forward.  He said that he contacted SCOLERA several times for about 150 metres.

Referring to Mr Pinn’s actions, Mr Dooley said that Stewards do not accept that standard of riding.  Mr Pinn has ridden his horse with vigour and tried to push Ms Fawcett’s horse back in.

Using the ‘turn camera’ footage, Mr Dooley showed that Mr Pinn’s body was on an angle, leaning on to Ms Fawcett’s mount and he again showed that the horses touched several times.

Mr Dooley said that Stewards accept ‘competitive riding’ for a short distance, but not for 150 metres. Using the back on films, Mr Dooley showed that it was evident that Mr Pinn was driving his body into Ms Fawcett for a considerable distance.

Mr Pinn advised that he had no questions arising from Mr Dooley’s evidence.

Witness Ms Fawcett

Ms Fawcett’s evidence was led by Mr Jones.  She confirmed that she was the Rider of SCOLERA. She was referred to the race films coming into the home straight and for the ensuing 200 metres.  She said that she ran out of room, due to pressure being applied from the horse on her outside (LIECHTENSTEIN). Ms Fawcett said that she was going for a run between LIECHTENSTEIN and the horse on the inside (MIDORI GLORY) and was contacted on several occasions and the contact went on for between 150 and 200 metres. Ms Fawcett concluded her evidence by saying that she had to change ground, because her mount had lost momentum.

Mr Pinn advised that he had no questions arising from Ms Fawcett’s evidence.

Respondent Mr Pinn

Using the race films, Mr Pinn showed that he was tracking the horse outside the leader (MIDORI GLORY), that Ms Fawcett “has used brute force” to shift off the fence on the corner.  He said that the other reason she has come out, was because she has used force.  He said that he has “ridden to the Rules” and he was entitled to maintain a straight line.  He said that none of this would have happened, had she not used force.  In reference to Ms Fawcett’s shift on the bend, he said, “I’m lent over because of the force, she’s put me off balance and I’m lucky to have stayed on”. Mr Pinn was queried by the Adjudicative Committee regarding his angling his mount into Ms Fawcett and he responded that it was his line and all she had to do is wait for three strides.  He reiterated that he was entitled to hold a straight line and stated that he was now being punished for Ms Fawcett’s mistake.

Mr Jones advised that he had no questions arising from Mr Pinn’s evidence.

Summing up

In summing up the Stewards case, Mr Jones said that Ms Fawcett’s case has been dealt with (she prior to this hearing admitted a charge of careless riding). Mr Jones said that “two wrongs do not make a right”.  He referred to the fact that although Ms Fawcett shifted out in breach of the Rules, Mr Pinn had no right to fight over that spot for 150 metres.  He said that after shifting out, Ms Fawcett had established SCOLERA into the gap on the inside of LIECHTENSTEIN and once established, Mr Pinn must relent.  He submitted that Mr Pinn is very fortunate that he is not facing a charge of a higher nature, but there was some outward movement, which may have saved him from facing a more serious charge.

In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, Mr Jones confirmed that the basis for the careless charge, was that Mr Pinn angled his mount inwards for some considerable distance, when not the required distance clear of SCOLERA.

In summing up his case, Mr Pinn restated that Ms Fawcett has used force to push him off his line, which he was entitled to.  He accepted that he has turned his horse’s head out, but he submitted that was because Ms Fawcett was pushing him out.  He also restated that his horse never moved off its line and there was no room for Ms Fawcett to take the gap. He also repeated that he was being punished for someone else’s mistake.

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 Mr Pinn 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 (Mr Pinn) exercised the degree of care and attention that a ‘prudent’ Rider would exercise if placed in the same circumstances.  On this occasion, the Adjudicative Committee is of the opinion that Mr Pinn did not exercise the necessary care required of him under the circumstances.

The Adjudicative Committee first considered whether this was a case of competitive or careless riding. While brief jostling can be acceptable in racing, the jostling here lasted 150–200 metres, exceeding what is considered normal or acceptable competitive riding.

As Mr Jones noted in his summing up, Mr Pinn avoided a more serious charge because the incident began after Ms Fawcett shifted her mount and made initial contact.  These types of shifting ‘in or out’ incidents happen every day in racing, and when they do occur, affected Riders do not and should not respond or retaliate.  It is clear from the films, that Mr Pinn did unnecessarily and indeed unreasonably respond, by angling his mount’s head inwards onto SCOLERA for some considerable distance. There was no evidence or any indication that LIECHTENSTEIN was laying in or difficult to control, so the Adjudicative Committee concluded that Mr Pinn ‘directed’ his mount’s head inwards.

The Careless Riding Rule ensures race and Rider safety and covers a range of actions beyond simply shifting ground. Careless riding is not limited to shifting ground ‘in or out’.  It can include all manner of acts or omissions.  Angling the head of a horse into another over a considerable distance, as Mr Pinn did, is an example of such an act that may be deemed careless and in the Adjudicative Committee’s opinion, is on the cusp of ‘improper’ riding.  On at least three occasions during the hearing, Mr Pinn submitted that his riding was within the Rules.  Unfortunately for Mr Pinn, he fails to appreciate or lacks awareness that Improper Riding occurs when a Rider does any act or omission that is not in accordance with the Rules; is abnormal; wrong or incorrect.  In this case, Mr Pinn’s behaviour clearly exceeded what is allowed within the Rules of Racing and at the very least, is careless.

It is accepted that Ms Fawcett did initially shift out and contact LIECHTENSTEIN, but from that point on, she was entitled to establish her mount between LIECHTENSTEIN and MIDORI GLORY.

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.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Jones submitted that this is Mr Pinn’s third breach of the Careless Riding Rule, within the past 12 months.  During that period, he has had 296 race rides.  His most recent breach occurred on 29 November and resulted in a 5-day suspension.

Mr Jones submitted Stewards assessed this breach as being above mid-range.

In response, Mr Pinn sought to defer any proposed suspension until after racing on 7 February 2026.  In his penalty submission, he said the charge was a “joke”, and that he was being punished for someone else’s mistake.

Reasons for Penalty

The Adjudicative Committee has assessed the level of carelessness to be in the mid-range, which has a starting point of 7 days suspension. Mr Pinn’s riding history is treated as a neutral factor.  Although Mr Pinn cannot be penalised for defending the charge, he cannot be given credit for an admission of the breach that may otherwise have been afforded to him, had he done so.

Mr Pinn incorrectly believed that careless riding required a Rider to shift ground, whereas the Rule is much broader and as discussed earlier in this Decision, careless can encompass all manner of behaviour that falls below the standard expected of a prudent Rider.

Mr Pinn began the hearing respectfully, but later refused to accept responsibility for his own actions, instead he continued blaming Ms Fawcett and showed no contrition.

After considering all the factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined a 7-day suspension to be an appropriate penalty.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Mr Pinn’s License to ride in races is suspended for a period of 7 days, commencing after racing on 7 February 2026 and concluding after racing on 20 February 2026.