Waikato TR 30 January 2026 – R5 – Elen Nicholas

EVIDENCE

Following the running of Race 5, Apprentice Rider Miss Elen Nicholas defended a charge alleging that she breached Whip Rule 638(3)(f)(iii), in that she used her whip when out of contention to finish in the first five placings while riding AHRO.

Rule 638(3)(f)(iii) provides that:

A Rider must not use his or her whip when the Rider’s horse is out of contention to finish in the first five placings.

At the commencement of the hearing, Miss Nicholas confirmed that she denied the breach and requested that the Rule be read.

The proposed procedure for the conduct of a defended charge was explained to Miss Nicholas.

Witness – Mr B Jones

Using the race films, Deputy Chief Steward Mr Jones demonstrated the incident that gave rise to the charge. He pointed out three strikes that Stewards believed were non-compliant. Miss Nicholas rode her mount forward early in the straight. Stewards submitted that the first strike occurred when AHRO was running—if not last, then very close to last. She struck her mount a second time when the rest of the field appeared to be pulling away near the 200-metre mark. She struck her mount a third time near the 150-metre mark while still in last position. AHRO ultimately finished last, 8.1 lengths from the winner and 4 lengths from fifth place. Stewards further submitted that at no stage was Miss Nicholas in a position to finish in the first five placings, and accordingly, all three strikes were unnecessary.

Respondent – Miss Nicholas

Miss Nicholas requested that all available camera angles from the top of the straight be shown. Stewards complied and played the requested footage without commentary.

Miss Nicholas submitted that, upon entering the straight, she felt her mount was travelling well and that the horses outside her were not travelling as strongly. She sat up and waited to see whether the horse in front and to the outside of her mount would drift in. When it became clear that it would not, she asked her mount to improve into the gap. At that point, she held her position but did not improve. When she asked her mount to improve a third time using the whip, she determined that the horse was not responding well enough to continue urging it forward. She then sat up and rode out the final 150 metres, without further use of the whip.

Mr Harris submitted that at the time of the first two whip uses, the horses directly outside Miss Nicholas improved to finish in the first five placings, and at that point, her mount was still in contention. After the third strike, when the horse failed to respond, she ceased using the whip. He further submitted that the strikes were compliant in terms of placement and were not forceful.

REASONS FOR DECISION

After reviewing the race films, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proven. In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, the first strike was questionable; however, by the time the second and third strikes were delivered, the horse was not in a realistic position to finish in the first five placings.

DECISION

The charge is found proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY

Mr Dooley advised that Miss Nicholas had two previous breaches of this Rule. The first occurred on 27 December 2025 and resulted in a $300 fine; the second occurred on 6 January 2026 and resulted in a $400 fine.

Mr Dooley submitted that, as this was Miss Nicholas’ third breach within a relatively short period, her record was not favourable. He suggested a fine in the vicinity of $500, representing a $100 uplift from her previous penalty.

Miss Nicholas submitted that she would learn from this experience, particularly regarding the use of the whip when a horse is not in contention to finish in the first five placings.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Adjudicative Committee considered the submissions and determined that the matter could be appropriately dealt with by way of a fine. This was Miss Nicholas’ third breach of the Rule in a short period.

The breach involved three strikes when the horse was not in contention to finish in the first five. The Adjudicative Committee noted that recent subsequent breaches of this Rule have resulted in fines of up to $750 or brief suspensions. Taking this into account, along with Miss Nicholas’ status as an apprentice, the Adjudicative Committee considered a fine of $500 to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Miss Nicholas was fined $500.