NZ Metro TC 11 September 2015 – R 1 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA10604
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 11 September 2015
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
KHales
Race Date:
2015/09/11
Race Number:
R1
Decision:
Mr Stratford having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Stratford was fined the sum of $1,000.00.
Facts:
Information No. A7705 was filed by Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Advance Amateur Driver, Mr M J Stratford, alleging a breach of Rule 866 (a) in that, as the driver of ALEXY in Race 1, Bishopdale/Bush Inn TAB’s & Tavern Harewood Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, he “checked out with a whip which had been modified to include a metal rod”.
Mr Stratford was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he admitted the breach.
Rule 866 provides as follows:
No horseman shall use in a race:
(a) a metal lined whip.
Mr McIntyre told the Committee that, as the horses were on the track for Race 1, Stewards “came across” Mr Stratford’s whip and removed it from him prior to the start of the Race.
Mr McIntyre produced the whip to the hearing and pointed out that it had a metal rod or wire attached to it. The Committee observed that the rod or wire, approximately 330 millimetres in length and 4.00 millimetres in diameter (No. 8 wire), had been securely taped to the end of the whip with black insulation tape.
Mr McIntyre explained that the effect of the modification would be to make the whip heavier. He added that the effect of hitting a horse with a whip with a metal rod would be a lot greater than hitting it with an “approved whip” or standard whip.
Mr Stratford (also holder of a Licence to Train) said that he had not been working his horses during the week, as he had had to start his work early. He had had a former licensed driver working a horse for him. That person had pointed out to him that he had noticed that there was something wrong with the whip, when he drove fast work on Wednesday, and that he had “strengthened it up” by putting a bit of wire in it and taping it up. Mr Stratford said that he had relied on that former horseman to know whether the modification was acceptable. He had arrived at the races and did not think to tell anyone about the modified whip, he said.
Mr Stratford further explained that he did not intend to use the whip on his horse as the trainer of the horse, Mr Bruce Negus, had spoken to him the previous evening to tell him how to drive the horse and to not use the whip. Mr Stratford told the Committee that Mr Negus had told him that he had attempted to notify a change to the gear of the horse to carry no whip but was informed that it was too late to do so. Mr Stratford said that, although he intended to carry the whip in the race, he did not intend to use it.
Mr Stratford admitted that he had done wrong. He would not have brought the whip to the races had he known that it was in breach of the Rules, Mr Stratford said.
Mr McIntyre said that it was difficult to accept that a trainer would attempt to take a whip off a horse and, yet, Mr Stratford would carry a whip strengthened with wire and capable of inflicting a great deal more pain on a horse than a standard whip.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Stratford acknowledged that the whip did feel heavier than a standard whip.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr McIntyre submitted that all industry groups were working very hard in relation to animal welfare. Putting a wire on the end of a whip would obviously inflict “undue suffering” on a horse, making the whip a lot heavier. It could be seen as cruelty to animals. This was the reason for the particular Rule, Mr McIntyre said. He said that Mr Stratford could easily have replaced the whip, even on race night, rather than attempt to add a piece of wire to a whip and cover it with black tape to avoid detection by the Stewards.
Mr McIntyre had the tape and rod removed from the whip and then asked Mr Stratford what was wrong with the whip as it was, as it appeared to be in good condition (the whip also appeared to the Committee to be in good condition). It was an “unbroken whip with a rod on it”, Mr McIntyre submitted.
Mr McIntyre referred to the Penalty Guide which provided a starting point for a breach of the Rule of 15 drives or a fine of $750. He said that he could not recall a case in which he had seen a whip “wired up” as in this case. The Stewards’ submission was for a fine of approximately $1,000, taking into account the effect on animal welfare, he said.
Mr Stratford submitted that he did not wish to have a suspension and, in his financial position, he would not want a large fine. He acknowledged the seriousness of the offending with the animal welfare issue, but pointed out it was his “first offence”. He submitted that a fine of $500 would be a fair penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
This case is a clear breach of Rule 866 (a). It fits squarely within the words of the Rule referring, as it does, to a whip being metal-lined. The reason for the Rule is obvious. It is clear there is a matter of animal welfare involved and it is part of a Judicial Committee’s function to safeguard animal welfare.
Harness Racing New Zealand has an Animal Welfare Policy, adopted in April 2013, the purpose of which is to ensure that “the safety and welfare of all registered harness racing horses is maintained”. The Policy document provides:
The maintenance of the animal welfare of these registered horses ensures the best interests of all industry participants are served. The protection of the industry’s reputation is paramount and animal welfare is a critical factor in ensuring this is done.
The Committee inspected the offending whip and, frankly, we were appalled that any horseman would take such a whip onto the track and, even worse, contemplate using it on his horse.
Mr Stratford’s explanation we found to be disingenuous to say the least, if not naïve. It did not in any way justify his going onto the track with the whip, notwithstanding that he had been instructed by the horse’s trainer not to use a whip.
The breach is a serious one in the Committee’s view. The penalty needs to reflect that. The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750. We did not consider a suspension in this case because of the difficulty, for obvious reasons, in equating a number of drives to a term of suspension in the case of an Amateur Driver. Mr McIntyre submitted that a fine of $1,000 was appropriate.
Taking the Penalty Guide starting point of a $750 fine, there are no mitigating factors in this case that we can find. Admission of the breach, which was inevitable, and no previous breach of the Rule are not mitigating factors in the circumstances of this case. However, there is an aggravating factor in that the whip had been modified for no apparent reason - whether Mr Stratford carried out the modification himself or not. The fact remains that he took the whip out with him onto the track with the knowledge that the whip had been modified in breach of the Rule. It is difficult to accept Mr Stratford’s statement that he did not intend to use it. In our view, those are significant aggravating factors warranting an uplift from the Penalty Guide starting point of $750.
Mr McIntyre’s penalty submission of a $1,000 fine we considered to be quite appropriate.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 0419ecc8bdd9d64eb2a9aff2c4b265ae
informantnumber: A7705
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Using metal lined whip
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 14/09/2015
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 11 September 2015 - R 1 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Information No. A7705 was filed by Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Advance Amateur Driver, Mr M J Stratford, alleging a breach of Rule 866 (a) in that, as the driver of ALEXY in Race 1, Bishopdale/Bush Inn TAB’s & Tavern Harewood Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace, he “checked out with a whip which had been modified to include a metal rod”.
Mr Stratford was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he admitted the breach.
Rule 866 provides as follows:
No horseman shall use in a race:
(a) a metal lined whip.
Mr McIntyre told the Committee that, as the horses were on the track for Race 1, Stewards “came across” Mr Stratford’s whip and removed it from him prior to the start of the Race.
Mr McIntyre produced the whip to the hearing and pointed out that it had a metal rod or wire attached to it. The Committee observed that the rod or wire, approximately 330 millimetres in length and 4.00 millimetres in diameter (No. 8 wire), had been securely taped to the end of the whip with black insulation tape.
Mr McIntyre explained that the effect of the modification would be to make the whip heavier. He added that the effect of hitting a horse with a whip with a metal rod would be a lot greater than hitting it with an “approved whip” or standard whip.
Mr Stratford (also holder of a Licence to Train) said that he had not been working his horses during the week, as he had had to start his work early. He had had a former licensed driver working a horse for him. That person had pointed out to him that he had noticed that there was something wrong with the whip, when he drove fast work on Wednesday, and that he had “strengthened it up” by putting a bit of wire in it and taping it up. Mr Stratford said that he had relied on that former horseman to know whether the modification was acceptable. He had arrived at the races and did not think to tell anyone about the modified whip, he said.
Mr Stratford further explained that he did not intend to use the whip on his horse as the trainer of the horse, Mr Bruce Negus, had spoken to him the previous evening to tell him how to drive the horse and to not use the whip. Mr Stratford told the Committee that Mr Negus had told him that he had attempted to notify a change to the gear of the horse to carry no whip but was informed that it was too late to do so. Mr Stratford said that, although he intended to carry the whip in the race, he did not intend to use it.
Mr Stratford admitted that he had done wrong. He would not have brought the whip to the races had he known that it was in breach of the Rules, Mr Stratford said.
Mr McIntyre said that it was difficult to accept that a trainer would attempt to take a whip off a horse and, yet, Mr Stratford would carry a whip strengthened with wire and capable of inflicting a great deal more pain on a horse than a standard whip.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Stratford acknowledged that the whip did feel heavier than a standard whip.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Mr Stratford having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr McIntyre submitted that all industry groups were working very hard in relation to animal welfare. Putting a wire on the end of a whip would obviously inflict “undue suffering” on a horse, making the whip a lot heavier. It could be seen as cruelty to animals. This was the reason for the particular Rule, Mr McIntyre said. He said that Mr Stratford could easily have replaced the whip, even on race night, rather than attempt to add a piece of wire to a whip and cover it with black tape to avoid detection by the Stewards.
Mr McIntyre had the tape and rod removed from the whip and then asked Mr Stratford what was wrong with the whip as it was, as it appeared to be in good condition (the whip also appeared to the Committee to be in good condition). It was an “unbroken whip with a rod on it”, Mr McIntyre submitted.
Mr McIntyre referred to the Penalty Guide which provided a starting point for a breach of the Rule of 15 drives or a fine of $750. He said that he could not recall a case in which he had seen a whip “wired up” as in this case. The Stewards’ submission was for a fine of approximately $1,000, taking into account the effect on animal welfare, he said.
Mr Stratford submitted that he did not wish to have a suspension and, in his financial position, he would not want a large fine. He acknowledged the seriousness of the offending with the animal welfare issue, but pointed out it was his “first offence”. He submitted that a fine of $500 would be a fair penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
This case is a clear breach of Rule 866 (a). It fits squarely within the words of the Rule referring, as it does, to a whip being metal-lined. The reason for the Rule is obvious. It is clear there is a matter of animal welfare involved and it is part of a Judicial Committee’s function to safeguard animal welfare.
Harness Racing New Zealand has an Animal Welfare Policy, adopted in April 2013, the purpose of which is to ensure that “the safety and welfare of all registered harness racing horses is maintained”. The Policy document provides:
The maintenance of the animal welfare of these registered horses ensures the best interests of all industry participants are served. The protection of the industry’s reputation is paramount and animal welfare is a critical factor in ensuring this is done.
The Committee inspected the offending whip and, frankly, we were appalled that any horseman would take such a whip onto the track and, even worse, contemplate using it on his horse.
Mr Stratford’s explanation we found to be disingenuous to say the least, if not naïve. It did not in any way justify his going onto the track with the whip, notwithstanding that he had been instructed by the horse’s trainer not to use a whip.
The breach is a serious one in the Committee’s view. The penalty needs to reflect that. The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of 15 drives or a fine of $750. We did not consider a suspension in this case because of the difficulty, for obvious reasons, in equating a number of drives to a term of suspension in the case of an Amateur Driver. Mr McIntyre submitted that a fine of $1,000 was appropriate.
Taking the Penalty Guide starting point of a $750 fine, there are no mitigating factors in this case that we can find. Admission of the breach, which was inevitable, and no previous breach of the Rule are not mitigating factors in the circumstances of this case. However, there is an aggravating factor in that the whip had been modified for no apparent reason - whether Mr Stratford carried out the modification himself or not. The fact remains that he took the whip out with him onto the track with the knowledge that the whip had been modified in breach of the Rule. It is difficult to accept Mr Stratford’s statement that he did not intend to use it. In our view, those are significant aggravating factors warranting an uplift from the Penalty Guide starting point of $750.
Mr McIntyre’s penalty submission of a $1,000 fine we considered to be quite appropriate.
penalty:
Mr Stratford was fined the sum of $1,000.00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 866(a)
Informant: N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: M J Stratford, Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6d97bb6f0d0646e552a005fafc5c0189
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: afe69bae8318604994ebd55805a5be67
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/09/2015
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 11 September 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: KHales
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC