Wairarapa RC 6 February 2026 – R8 (heard 8 February 2026 at Otaki) – Leah Hemi

EVIDENCE:

Following the running of Race 8, the “ENTAIN/NZB INSURANCE PEARL SERIES 1600m”, Mr Goodwin presented an Information charging Ms Hemi, the Rider of KNICKERLESS, with a breach of Whip Rule 638(3)(f)(iii), in that she used the whip on her mount KNICKERLESS 2 times when it was out of contention of finishing in the first 5 placings.

Ms Hemi denied the charge.

The Information could not be heard after Race 8, as a prior defended hearing against another Rider lasted a long time and travel arrangements for Ms Hemi required that she leave the course.  Accordingly, the hearing of the Information was formally opened and adjourned to be heard today, 8 February 2026 at the Otaki-Maori Racing Club Meeting, at which Ms Hemi had declared mounts.  The hearing proceeded today.

The race films depicted that KNICKERLESS, ridden by Ms Hemi, was in last place throughout the first 100 metres of the 1600m race, until entering the home straight. Ms Hemi angled the horse out in the aim to improve.  It was struck 3 times with the whip and there was no response.  Inside the final 100 metres, it was struck 2 times with the whip when out of contention and finished 2nd last of the 9 runners.

Ms Hemi’s contention was that she had ridden the horse “on its merits”; it had previously run on from last place, and it was trained to run further than the 1600 metres of this race.  She said that she was aware of the Rule and “believed that the horse was in contention” of finishing in the first 5 places.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee’s view is that the fact of a horse being “out of contention” is an objective fact to be determined from the evidence of the film and from the existing circumstances.  What a Rider says he/she may believe, does not determine the test.  If a horse is already out of contention, this Rule requires that it must not be struck with the whip.

It was clear from the race films that the horse was never in contention of finishing in the first 5 places.  When it did not respond when first struck in the straight, it should not have been struck again after the 100 metre mark.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Although Ms Hemi has a worrying record for other breaches of the Rules, she had only been warned once (on 31 October 2025) for offending on the particular Rule 638(3)(f)(iii).  Mr Goodwin submitted that as a consequence, a fine only should follow (he submitted $250).

Ms Hemi made no submissions as to penalty.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee determined that a fine was the appropriate sanction on this occasion.

CONCLUSION:

Ms Hemi is fined $250.