Wanganui JC 19 January 2026 – R1 – Kelly Myers

Following the running of Race 1, Ms K Myers admitted a breach of the Whip Rules in that she used her whip in the flank region on a number of occasions on her mount SOL DE OTONO.

Rule 638 provides as follows:

(3)     Whip Rules

          (f)   Without limiting the generality of subrule 638(3)(e), in a Flat Race . . . a rider must not use his or their whip:

          (x)   on the flank of the Rider’s horse.

Evidence

Stipendiary Steward Ms L Selvakumaran presented video footage that, when reviewed in slow motion, showed Ms Myers applying the whip several times in a downward motion in the vicinity of the the horse’s flank over the concluding stages of the race.

Ms Myers stated that she had not been aware the whip had made contact with the flank area and that any such contact was entirely inadvertent.

Decision

As the charge was admitted, it is deemed proved.

Submissions on Penalty

Ms  Selvakumaran noted that penalties for similar breaches have typically ranged from $200 to $500, with a starting point of $300.

Ms Myers submitted that, in the context of this being her first charge under the flank‑whip provision, there was no practical distinction between delivering one strike or four strikes to the flank, as she was unaware that her whip was making contact with that part of the horse. She argued that her lack of awareness meant the number of strikes should not be viewed as an aggravating factor on this occasion.

Reasons for Penalty

Under the RIB Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide (February 2025), this type of breach is deemed “fact‑dependent,” meaning that the penalty must reflect the specific circumstances of the incident.

Use of the whip on the flank, a particularly sensitive area of the horse’s body, raises animal welfare concerns and is prohibited to protect the wellbeing of racehorses.

This is a new Rule which Riders are required to come to terms with. An initial warning will generally precede a charge (except for black type races where warnings are not given). Repeated breaches are likely to result in increasingly higher penalties.

In this instance, the Adjudicative Committee adopted $300 as the starting point. Taking into account that this was Ms Myers’ first offence under this Rule (following a warning) and that the breach was not deliberate, the Adjudicative Committee determined that this was an appropriate and fair penalty.

Conclusion

Ms K Myers is fined the sum of $300.