In a sequel to the jockey protest action which prematurely brought an end to the Hollywoodbets Durbanville racemeeting on Wednesday 26 March, jockey JP van der Merwe has been fined R100 000.
JP van der Merwe – fined (Pic – Chase Liebenberg)
Van der Merwe was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.27 in that he, as a Rider who was carded to participate in scheduled races, and without any lawful justification, was party to a protest action which resulted in the abandonment of the race meeting held at Hollywoodbets Durbanville Racecourse on Wednesday, 26 March 2025.
Van der Merwe signed an Admission of Guilt and a monetary fine of R100 000 (One Hundred Thousand Rand) was imposed, of which R50 000 (Fifty Thousand Rand) is suspended for a period of five (5) years on condition that he is not found guilty of contravening Rule 72.1.27, during the said five (5) year period.
The Sporting Post believes that the other jockeys involved in the protest also have the option to sign an Acknowledgement of Guilt.
Those choosing not to sign will face an Inquiry, which is said to be scheduled for the month of May.
The protest on 26 March arose after the jockeys protested against an interim suspension imposed on Grant van Niekerk after comments made in a post-race interview on the day.
Van Niekerk was subsequently given a 90-day suspension from race riding, of which 60 days were suspended for three years, subject to the following conditions:
1.1 Public Apology: Jockey van Niekerk must issue a public apology to the NHA via the media within ten days of this ruling.
1.2 Jockey van Niekerk must not be convicted of Rule 72.1.26 during the three-year suspension period.
1.3 The nine days suspension already served will be taken into account in determining the dates of the remainder of the 30 days’ suspension. Accordingly, the 30-day suspension could be served from 27 March 2025 to 26 April 2025, subject to his right of appeal.
Fine
2.1 A fine of R100,000, of which R75,000 is suspended for three years, on condition that Jockey van Niekerk is not convicted of another Rule 72.1.26 violation during this period.
Van Niekerk was given the Right of Appeal against both the finding and the penalty imposed. We understand that he may be appealing.
