Wellington RC 28 June 2025 – R2 – (heard 13 July 2025 at Woodville) – Toni Moki

Background:

Following the running of Race 2, the ‘Autotech Doors Maiden Hurdle’, an Information was lodged alleging a breach of Rule 638(5)(b). Details are as follows:

‘in that she failed to retire to retire her mount ‘MOLLY’S GOLD’ when out of contention.

Rule 638(5)(b) provides:

(5) A Rider in a Jumping Race or Trial must retire his or her horse from a Race or Trial immediately if: (b) the horse is not in contention and/or fatigued;

As the Respondent had left the racecourse, a hearing was opened, adjourned and heard at the Woodville-Pahiatua Racing Club Meeting on 13 July 2025.

Details in respect of the alleged breach (along with the Rule) were read to the Respondent. She confirmed that she understood both and advised the Adjudicative Committee that she sought to defend the charge.

Evidence:

Using available film, Stewards identified the horse and incident. The race was a 2500 metre Maiden hurdle event with nine starters. MOLLY’S GOLD was in the rear of the field throughout the race. In the home straight, the field was required to clear three fences.  MOLLY’S GOLD jumped the first two and was then retired from the race, prior to the third.

Stewards contended that the Respondent should have retired the horse after jumping the first fence in the straight, not the second. The Respondent remained adamant that her horse was not fatigued at all, that she had her ears pricked, however was ‘slow’ in that ground. She added that she persevered over the second fence, in anticipation that one of the horses in front of her may fall, thus improving her stake bearing position. All horses stood, at which point she retired the horse, satisfied it was out of contention.

Reasons for Decision:

For the charge to be upheld, the Adjudicative Committee must be satisfied that the ride of the Respondent amounted to a breach of the Rule. The are two elements of the Rule critical in determining outcome. They are the use of the terms ‘must retire…immediately if’ and  ‘not in contention and/or is fatigued’.

The Adjudicative Committee viewed the video several times and accept important elements of the Respondent’s explanation ie: that the horse was not fatigued and that she retired the horse on determining that it was out of contention. Ms Moki is conversant with the Rule and her obligations. Based upon the foregoing, the Adjudicative Committee could not be satisfied that film and submissions, demonstrated to the required level, that the ride represented a breach of the Rule. As such, the charge was dismissed.

Decision:

The charge is dismissed.