Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 22 January 2026 – Ayush Mudhoo

Senior Racing Investigator, Simon Irving, has filed an Information against Class B Jockey, Ayush Mudhoo, alleging a breach of Rule 800(1). The particulars of the charge are as follows:

“On the 30th of November 2025, at Cromwell Racecourse, Class B Apprentice Jockey, Ayush Mudhoo, did misconduct himself by attempting to strike Jockey, Bill Jacobson, with his whip following the running of Race 8, and by being verbally abusive toward that Rider in the weighing room, in breach of Rule 800(1) and subject to penalty under Rule in 803(1) of the NZTR Rules of Racing”.

Rule 800 provides as follows:

(1) A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct themself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

The Rule and Charge were read to Mr Mudhoo, who indicated that he understood them both and that he admitted the breach, which was found proved accordingly.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Adjudicative Committee reserved its Penalty Decision. That Decision now follows.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Mr Irving presented the Agreed Summary of Facts:

1. The Respondent Ayush Mudhoo (Mudhoo) is the holder of a Class B (Apprentice Jockey) Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). He is 21 years old and is indentured to Andrew Carston at Riccarton. NZTR records detail that he commenced race day riding in the 2023/24 season and has had 169 rides for 12 wins.

Circumstances

2. Both Mudhoo and Class A Jockey, Billy Jacobson (Jacobson), were riding at the Otago Racing Club’s two-day meeting at Cromwell. Following the running of Race 8 on the second day, Sunday 30 November 2025, an altercation occurred upon pulling up.

3. Mudhoo was riding ON FILE and finished 10th of 13 runners. Jacobson was riding UGO and finished 9th.

4. As Mudhoo was turning his mount to head back to the birdcage, Jacobson deliberately rode UGO into the side of ON FILE, with his horse’s nose contacting Mudhoo’s side, the impact causing him to become unbalanced in the saddle.

5. Jacobson made comment similar to “I told you not to f….n’ come in there” and the pair exchanged words.

6. The initial contact is captured on Trackside footage, but then the coverage ends.

7. Mudhoo reacted by attempting to strike Jacobson with his whip, but missed, hitting UGO forcefully in the top of the head area. As he recoiled his arm, he lost his grip on the whip dropping it.

8. Their remonstrations were loud enough to attract the attention of fellow riders and the pair continued to abuse each other as they cantered to the birdcage.

9. While in the weighing room, the pair continued their disagreement. Jacobson told Mudhoo there was no room for him to shift in when racing to his outside down the back straight.

10. The discussion intensified and the pair came together face-to-face.

11. Stipendiary Steward, Mark Davidson, asked both riders to desist, but was ignored. Their language and demeanour became more heated, resulting in Mr Davidson stepping in and pushing them apart. To separate the pair, he directed Jacobson go to the Jockeys’ room and Mudhoo to the Stewards’ room.

12. The Stewards’ review of the race footage did not reveal any breaches of the rules by Mudhoo during the running of the race.

13. A veterinary examination of UGO revealed no injury caused by the strike.

14. When interviewed by Stewards, Jacobson admitted trotting up to Mudhoo, but denied it was intentional, stating that he was trying to stop his horse. He admitted that he “lost his cool” when Mudhoo “got in his face”.

15. When interviewed by Stewards, Mudhoo admitted to trying to hit Jacobson with his stick and accidentally striking the horse after Jacobson had ridden his horse into him. He stated that he lost his temper and went on with it in the weighing room.

Conclusion

16. The RIB investigation also concludes that Mudhoo has misconducted himself by attempting to strike Jacobson with his whip, unintentionally connecting with his horse’s head and then continuing the conflict aggressively in the weighing room.

17. Mudhoo has no previous NRI charges.

THE VIDEO EVIDENCE:

Video replays were shown to the hearing. One replay showed the field pulling up past the winning post after the race. Mr Jacobson’s mount could be seen at the back of the field, some distance behind the other runners, having been the first to pull up, Mr Irving said. On another replay, Mr Irving pointed out Mr Mudhoo’s mount, amongst runners, turning to return to the birdcage and Mr Jacbson approaching. He then showed Mr Jacobson deliberately riding up to Mr Mudhoo, and the nose of Mr Jacobson’s runner contact Mr Mudhoo’s midriff. Mr Mudhoo could be clearly seen to “shift sideways” from the impact. Mr Mudhoo’s reaction was not captured on a replay, but Mr Mudhoo demonstrated to the hearing how he reacted, and added that he missed Mr Jacobson, and struck Mr Jacobson’s mount on the head, he said.

Mr Irving submitted that Mr Mudhoo’s reaction was a “normal human reaction”, to strike back.

Mr Irving said that Mr Mudhoo was “pretty annoyed” at getting hit by Mr Jacobson’s horse. This was out of character for Mr Mudhoo, Stewards had confirmed to him. Mr Carston said likewise.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF INFORMANT

Introduction

1. The Respondent, Ayush Mudhoo, is a Class B Licensed Jockey. He is 21 years old and is indentured to trainer Andrew Carston at Riccarton. He has held an Apprentice Licence since the 2023/24 season and has had 169 raceday rides in those three years.

2. He has admitted a charge of breaching Rule 800(1) – Misconduct, following an incident at the conclusion of Race 8 at the Otago RC meeting at Cromwell on 30 November 2025.

Purpose of penalties

3. Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.

4. In a racing context, it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.

5. A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.

6. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

Principles of sentencing

7. The RIB Penalty Guide for misconduct breaches are “fact dependent”. Misconduct can take many forms and in assessing the level of seriousness of the misconduct, any physical violence must be considered as being at the higher end of the scale.

8. While there appear to be no previous cases of similar fact and circumstance, the following cases may give some guidance to the Adjudicative Committee:

RIB v B Murray (2023)

Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 6 May 2023 – R5 – Brett Murray

Senior Jockey, Murray, admitted two charges of misconduct in that he used inappropriate language in the weigh-in area post-race and then punched another rider, K Chowdhoory, once in the head in the Jockeys’ Room. The Committee, in reaching its decision on penalty, treated the two breaches as being part of the same course of conduct and imposed one penalty of a 4-week suspension. The Adjudicative Committee commented:

“A further important factor is the existence of an element of provocation. The Respondent claimed that Mr Chowdhoory had jostled his mount during the running of the race, a claim that has some support from the Stewards’ Report on the race. That would account for his frame of mind upon returning to scale. Then, shortly thereafter, Mr Chowdhoory said words to the Respondent which, possibly, provoked the physical altercation in the Jockeys’ Room. Having said that, of course, neither of those factors justified the Respondent’s responses.”

“These breaches could have been dealt with by way of fines, but it was the Respondent’s request that the Adjudicative Committee considers a suspension. The Adjudicative Committee has been made aware of his financial circumstances and deems a suspension to be appropriate. Any period of disqualification would be unduly harsh.”

NZTR v J Waddell (2006)

Archive Decision – Adjourned Inquiry – J Waddell

Apprentice Jockey, Waddell, admitted a charge of misconduct in that after the winning post he deliberately directed his mount inward onto another rider’s mount forcing that runner down toward the running rail, causing that rider to take evasive action. Waddell had come from a position four horse-widths out to catch up with the other rider, and contact was made on three occasions.

In determining penalty, the Judicial Committee considered the mitigating factors of a good record and an admitted breach in issuing a suspension of just under 3 weeks and a $500 fine. The Adjudicative Committee commented:

“The issue of provocation has been mentioned, but there is no place in racing for reactions such as this, especially in this instance where a group race was involved. In fixing penalty there will be a period of suspension, but allowance will be made for the above mitigating circumstances. The serious nature can be balanced by adding a monetary penalty.”

RIU v I Lupton (2014)

Archive Decision – RIU v I Lupton – Decision dated 1 November 2014

Class D Rider, Lupton, struck another rider at least three times to the body and head with his whip during the running of a race at Te Rapa. Lupton admitted a charge of “foul riding” and was suspended for three months.

Mitigating Factors

9. Mr Mudhoo has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity, accepted responsibility for his actions and has been cooperative with Investigators throughout the process.

10. He has a clean judicial record and, according to RIB Stewards, his actions were totally out of character.

11. Mr Mudhoo’s reaction to being ridden into by Mr Jacobson was immediate. As in the case of Murray, there is a definite element of provocation and his retaliatory action of striking out with his whip could be viewed as being proportionate in the circumstances.

Aggravating Factors

12. In February 2023, NZTR published a Code of Conduct which establishes a set of standards of behaviour aimed at protecting the values of thoroughbred racing by ensuring that industry participants enjoy a safe supportive and respectful environment. The overarching principle of the code is that each person must maintain the highest standards of behaviour at all times towards other participants. The conduct of professional jockeys, whether apprentices or seniors, who are the “faces” of the sport, is of particular importance.

Submission

13. The RIB, having considered the overall circumstances of the case and the mitigating and aggravating factors, submits the penalty in this case should be a 3-4 weeks period of suspension.

14. No costs are sought.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Carston said that he had never seen Mr Mudhoo “raise his fist, raise his voice, raise his arm”. He submitted that Mr Mudhoo’s reaction was the result of adrenaline, having just ridden the race, and being “attacked” by Mr Jacbson. He submitted that it was unacceptable that a Senior Jockey could behave like this to an Apprentice Jockey. Mr Mudhoo had not instigated the incident, Mr Carston submitted.

Mr Carston also referred to the fact that there was no mention in the Stewards’ Report on the race of any incident involving the two riders (see para 12 of the Summary of Facts above).

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

In a racing context, misconduct is a broad disciplinary concept covering behaviour that falls below the standards expected of licensed or registered participants, whether or not it occurs directly during a race.

It generally means improper, dishonest, abusive or unprofessional behaviour that brings racing into disrepute, undermines the integrity, safety or orderly conduct of the sport or breaches its rules or standards.

The video evidence in this case appeared to show that, as the horses were pulling up post-race and about to return to scale, Mr Jacobson steered his mount into Mr Mudhoo’s mount, having been upset by something that, the Adjudicative Committee was told, had occurred during the race. Mr Mudhoo could be seen to become unbalanced in the saddle, as a result of the contact. No video coverage is available from that point, but the evidence was that Mr Mudhoo retaliated by attempting to strike Mr Jacobson with his whip.

However, instead of making contact with Mr Jacobson, the whip contacted Mr Jacobson’s mount, according to the Summary of Facts, “forcefully in the top of the head area”.

Mr Mudhoo and Mr Jacobson continued to verbally abuse one another as they returned to scale and then in the Jockeys’ Room, causing Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson, to intervene and push them apart.

Mr Jacobson’s role in what happened is the subject of proceedings against him, yet to be heard. However, Mr Mudhoo has admitted that he misconducted himself by his own actions. He has retaliated, to what he claimed were Mr Jacobson’s actions, by attempting to strike him with his whip. The true “victim” in the incident was Mr Jacobson’s mount, UGO, who received a blow to his head from Mr Mudhoo’s whip. Fortunately, as was established in a subsequent vet check, the horse suffered no harm. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that it was not Mr Mudhoo’s intention to strike UGO with his whip, but striking a horse on the head, in any circumstances, is not acceptable under NZTR Rules or Animal Welfare Regulations.

Mr Mudhoo accepts that he was not entitled to retaliate, despite being provoked. He ought to have raised his concerns with Stewards, rather than taking matters into his own hands. While he may have felt aggrieved by the incident, retaliation after the finish was wholly inappropriate and created unnecessary risk. Having said that, the Adjudicative Committee accepts that Mr Mudhoo acted instinctively and momentarily, and not with premeditation, having been provoked by Mr Jacobson.

The charge against Mr Mudhoo, which he has admitted, also alleges that he was “verbally abusive” to Mr Jacobson in the weighing room. The Adjudicative Committee certainly does not condone such behaviour but, in this case, that behaviour is less serious than the incident that took place on the racetrack and may be viewed as part of the same course of conduct, and a continuation of the racetrack incident. However, the Adjudicative Committee has factored that element of the charge into its penalty considerations.

There are no particular aggravating factors. Mitigating factors are Mr Mudhoo’s admission of the breach, his genuine remorse, his previous good character and his status as an Apprentice Jockey. Mr Carston spoke very highly of him, as did Ilone Kelly in her testimonial provided to the Adjudicative Committee.

The Adjudicative Committee found some assistance in the previous cases referred to by Mr Irving in his penalty submissions. Of course, no two cases of misconduct are the same, but the cases referred to were helpful nevertheless.

In considering penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has also had regard to the usual principles of sentencing – to punish Mr Mudhoo for his offending, to deter others from committing similar offences, to reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question and, importantly in this case, the need to rehabilitate Mr Mudhoo.

Weighing up all relevant factors, it is the decision of the Adjudicative Committee that the appropriate penalty is a period of suspension of 4 weeks.

PENALTY:

Class B Jockey Ayush Mudhoo’s Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of four (4) weeks, such period to commence from the date of this Decision and is to be concurrent with the period of disqualification imposed by this Adjudicative Committee on the charge under Information A19863.

COSTS:

There will be no order as to costs.