Winton HRC 9 April 2017 – R 10 Chair, Mr P Knowles
ID: JCA11893
Meet Title:
Winton HRC - 9 April 2017
Meet Chair:
PKnowles
Meet Committee Member 1:
GHall
Race Date:
2017/04/09
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
We find that Mr Hunter has breached the rule through his continuous use of the whip over the final 400m. The charge is upheld.
In finding the charge proved we also find there are mitigating factors in Mr Hunter’s favour which need to be aired.
There are a number of issues to consider.
Do strikes “on the horse itself” but not “free of the rein” count? Or, do we interpret the Guidelines to be any strike “on the horse itself” and more than 10 is a breach of the rule?
A further issue is the type of strike with the whip. Mr Hunter claims only the final few “strikes” with the stick as opposed to the rest which were urgings with the stick or slaps with the stick. He stated none of those were forceful or intentional strikes.
The RIU deem it acceptable for the horse to be flicked with the whip, which are not included in the 10 permissible strikes under the Guidelines.
However, the issue of interpretations appears to be the result of recent charges. It is clear from evidence given at several recent hearings (Swain and Hunter) that their use of the whip is based on discussions with industry participants, including the RIU. Both Mr Swain and Mr Hunter were of the opinion they were using the whip correctly even though there use of the whip was high end and continuous. At no time did either horsemen consider there continuous use of the whip to be an issue. It’s important to note that in both (Mcllwrick and Swain) cases we adopted the RIU’s interpretation as both horsemen admitted the breach.
In this case Mr Hunter chose to defend the charge primarily based on his interpretation of the Guidelines following discussions with the RIU stewards. We see some merit in his defence as an opportunity now exists for the issue to be sorted within the industry as clearly the horsemen are confused.
It’s also an opportunity to clarify the Guidelines as the JCA’s interpretation of the “Whip Guidelines” also varies significantly from Canterbury, who adopt all of the RIU’s interpretations, and our own.
The Committee invites the parties to make submissions on penalty. The RIU’s submissions should be filed with the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority ([email protected]) no later than 4.00pm Thursday 20 April 2017. The submissions will then be sent to Mr Hunter is to file his submissions to the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority at the same email address by 4.00pm Monday 24 April 2017.
Penalty:
The use of the whip was excessive and continuous (22 strikes). Mr Hunter is suspended from the completion of racing at Gore on the 6th May up to and including Forbury Park on the 1st June 2017 (5 days).
These days include the following: Forbury Park 11th May, Winton 17th May, Invercargill on the 20th and 27th May and Forbury Park 1st June 2017.
P Knowles
Chair
5 May 2017
Facts:
Following the running of the Winton Business Cup, Stewards filed an Information alleging Mr Hunter (GROOMSMAN) used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 400m.
Rule 869 (2) (a) reads
No horseman shall during any race:
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.
The Whip Guidelines read:
Stewards deem the “use of the whip” throughout the race as listed below:
Free of the rein
On the horse itself
On the sulky or dust sheet
Back handers
Excessive use of the whip simply means “too much” and relates to the number of times and/or force with which the whip is used. The whip shall not be used more than 10 times in the last 400m of a race, otherwise this will be deemed excessive use pursuant to these Guidelines.
At no stage of a race will Stewards permit continuous use of the whip, Horseman must show distinct pauses between the whip being used. The horseman shall interrupt the use of his/her whip by using any of the suggested alternative actions:
Running the reins over the horse’s rump
Running the whip through the horse’s tail
Holding the ship on the horse’s tail or rump
A rein in each hand while using the whip – not continuous
Mr Hunter appeared at the hearing and understood the charge. The charge and guidelines were read and Mr Hunter and confirmed he did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Boyd, with the assistance of the video replays, outlined the position of Mr Hunter as the field improved past the 400m mark. He said Mr Hunter was three deep on the pole line before shifting outwards approaching the home straight. From just outside the 200m mark Mr Hunter was observed to use his whip in excess from that point to the finish line.
Mr Wallis stated Mr Hunter had used his whip with his hand on the rein on 22 occasions without a break. He went through the side-on video several times and counted the strikes. He said the final few were quick fire. He stated the force was not excessive, but there were no pauses and no alternate actions with the whip. He said Mr Hunter’s use of the whip equated to one strike every one second over the final stages of the race.
Mr Hunter stated he did not contest the number of strikes with the whip, but, claimed he had both hands on the reins throughout. He was of the view that that was allowable under the Guidelines. He had changed his whip action and the use of the whip to comply with the Guidelines following previous discussions with the stewards. While the number of strikes was high he said some of them were just slaps with the whip, others were on the sulky/dustsheet and some were his attempts to urge the horse forward as opposed to fully striking the horse. He did admit to striking the horse in quick succession short of the finish line.
The key issue is the wording of HRNZ’s “Use of the Whip Guidelines” and the RIU’s interpretation of them when charging a horseman with “use of the whip”. There are any number of clauses within the Guidelines which relate to excessive and continuous, but, the” use of the whip” is the relevant issue.
Under “use of the whip” clearly states… “Free of the rein”. Mr Hunter at no point has contested the use of the whip which was a mixture of slaps, urgings and strikes or the number of times he used the whip continuously. He stated he had changed his whip style and has kept both hands on the reins including when using the whip.
Alternatively, Mr Wallis has stated that Mr Hunter’s continuous use of the whip, without discernible breaks is deemed to be excessive under the Guidelines. He offered evidence that Mr Hunter had struck the horse with the whip on average every one second over the final 200m. He stated Mr Hunter was in breach of the rule as his use of the whip was in a continuous manner. Mr Hunter had both hands on the reins throughout and at no time used the whip “free of the rein”. Having both hands on the reins while using the whip is not covered in the wording of the Guidelines. Mr Wallis pursued this breach of the rule on the basis that Mr Hunter used his whip in a continuous manner while acknowledging he had both hands on the reins. He stated previous cases of Mcllwrick and Swain who were both charged with similar offences.
Reasons for Decision:
There is no doubt that Mr Hunter is clearly confused as to his obligations under the “Whip Guidelines”. He claims he has significantly altered his use of the whip following previous discussions with the RIU stewards. In particular, he understood that if he held the whip and rein in the same hand then he could drive his horse out.
However, the guidelines specifically highlight that the continuous use of the whip, used in any manner, is a breach of the rule. The video evidence given by the stewards is clear in this respect, Mr Hunter has used his whip, in a number of different ways, on 22 occasions. This is clearly beyond the 10 permissible strikes of the whip.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Wallis submitted that Mr Hunter is a reasonably busy Otago/Southland driver having competed in 165 races last season and in 99 races this season up to 18 April 2017. This is Mr Hunter’s third breach of the rule within three months, his most recent was a four day suspension. His use of the whip was at the top end of the scale (22 strikes).
The starting point in the Judicial Control Authority’s guidelines for a second breach of this rule is a 3-5 day suspension. Taking into account the aggravating features mentioned above the Stewards were seeking a suspension of five days.
Mr Hunter made no specific submissions on penalty other than the penalty be at the lower end of the scale. He reiterated that he had used his whip within the guidelines, as he understood them to be, had modified his use of the whip, and believed he had not breached the rule.
Reasons for Penalty:
Given that this is Mr Hunter’s third breach of the rule within three months we adopt a starting point of five days suspension. There are no mitigating factors, other than the fact that Mr Hunter has told us he had modified his whip action and was doing his best to comply with the guideline, as he understood it to read.
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: 2f9aa71eb36c5b42e972d056ac178e30
informantnumber: A9010
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Excessive use of the whip
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 05/05/2017
hearing_title: Winton HRC 9 April 2017 - R 10 Chair, Mr P Knowles
charge:
facts:
Following the running of the Winton Business Cup, Stewards filed an Information alleging Mr Hunter (GROOMSMAN) used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 400m.
Rule 869 (2) (a) reads
No horseman shall during any race:
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.
The Whip Guidelines read:
Stewards deem the “use of the whip” throughout the race as listed below:
Free of the rein
On the horse itself
On the sulky or dust sheet
Back handers
Excessive use of the whip simply means “too much” and relates to the number of times and/or force with which the whip is used. The whip shall not be used more than 10 times in the last 400m of a race, otherwise this will be deemed excessive use pursuant to these Guidelines.
At no stage of a race will Stewards permit continuous use of the whip, Horseman must show distinct pauses between the whip being used. The horseman shall interrupt the use of his/her whip by using any of the suggested alternative actions:
Running the reins over the horse’s rump
Running the whip through the horse’s tail
Holding the ship on the horse’s tail or rump
A rein in each hand while using the whip – not continuous
Mr Hunter appeared at the hearing and understood the charge. The charge and guidelines were read and Mr Hunter and confirmed he did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Boyd, with the assistance of the video replays, outlined the position of Mr Hunter as the field improved past the 400m mark. He said Mr Hunter was three deep on the pole line before shifting outwards approaching the home straight. From just outside the 200m mark Mr Hunter was observed to use his whip in excess from that point to the finish line.
Mr Wallis stated Mr Hunter had used his whip with his hand on the rein on 22 occasions without a break. He went through the side-on video several times and counted the strikes. He said the final few were quick fire. He stated the force was not excessive, but there were no pauses and no alternate actions with the whip. He said Mr Hunter’s use of the whip equated to one strike every one second over the final stages of the race.
Mr Hunter stated he did not contest the number of strikes with the whip, but, claimed he had both hands on the reins throughout. He was of the view that that was allowable under the Guidelines. He had changed his whip action and the use of the whip to comply with the Guidelines following previous discussions with the stewards. While the number of strikes was high he said some of them were just slaps with the whip, others were on the sulky/dustsheet and some were his attempts to urge the horse forward as opposed to fully striking the horse. He did admit to striking the horse in quick succession short of the finish line.
The key issue is the wording of HRNZ’s “Use of the Whip Guidelines” and the RIU’s interpretation of them when charging a horseman with “use of the whip”. There are any number of clauses within the Guidelines which relate to excessive and continuous, but, the” use of the whip” is the relevant issue.
Under “use of the whip” clearly states… “Free of the rein”. Mr Hunter at no point has contested the use of the whip which was a mixture of slaps, urgings and strikes or the number of times he used the whip continuously. He stated he had changed his whip style and has kept both hands on the reins including when using the whip.
Alternatively, Mr Wallis has stated that Mr Hunter’s continuous use of the whip, without discernible breaks is deemed to be excessive under the Guidelines. He offered evidence that Mr Hunter had struck the horse with the whip on average every one second over the final 200m. He stated Mr Hunter was in breach of the rule as his use of the whip was in a continuous manner. Mr Hunter had both hands on the reins throughout and at no time used the whip “free of the rein”. Having both hands on the reins while using the whip is not covered in the wording of the Guidelines. Mr Wallis pursued this breach of the rule on the basis that Mr Hunter used his whip in a continuous manner while acknowledging he had both hands on the reins. He stated previous cases of Mcllwrick and Swain who were both charged with similar offences.
reasonsfordecision:
There is no doubt that Mr Hunter is clearly confused as to his obligations under the “Whip Guidelines”. He claims he has significantly altered his use of the whip following previous discussions with the RIU stewards. In particular, he understood that if he held the whip and rein in the same hand then he could drive his horse out.
However, the guidelines specifically highlight that the continuous use of the whip, used in any manner, is a breach of the rule. The video evidence given by the stewards is clear in this respect, Mr Hunter has used his whip, in a number of different ways, on 22 occasions. This is clearly beyond the 10 permissible strikes of the whip.
Decision:
We find that Mr Hunter has breached the rule through his continuous use of the whip over the final 400m. The charge is upheld.
In finding the charge proved we also find there are mitigating factors in Mr Hunter’s favour which need to be aired.
There are a number of issues to consider.
Do strikes “on the horse itself” but not “free of the rein” count? Or, do we interpret the Guidelines to be any strike “on the horse itself” and more than 10 is a breach of the rule?
A further issue is the type of strike with the whip. Mr Hunter claims only the final few “strikes” with the stick as opposed to the rest which were urgings with the stick or slaps with the stick. He stated none of those were forceful or intentional strikes.
The RIU deem it acceptable for the horse to be flicked with the whip, which are not included in the 10 permissible strikes under the Guidelines.
However, the issue of interpretations appears to be the result of recent charges. It is clear from evidence given at several recent hearings (Swain and Hunter) that their use of the whip is based on discussions with industry participants, including the RIU. Both Mr Swain and Mr Hunter were of the opinion they were using the whip correctly even though there use of the whip was high end and continuous. At no time did either horsemen consider there continuous use of the whip to be an issue. It’s important to note that in both (Mcllwrick and Swain) cases we adopted the RIU’s interpretation as both horsemen admitted the breach.
In this case Mr Hunter chose to defend the charge primarily based on his interpretation of the Guidelines following discussions with the RIU stewards. We see some merit in his defence as an opportunity now exists for the issue to be sorted within the industry as clearly the horsemen are confused.
It’s also an opportunity to clarify the Guidelines as the JCA’s interpretation of the “Whip Guidelines” also varies significantly from Canterbury, who adopt all of the RIU’s interpretations, and our own.
The Committee invites the parties to make submissions on penalty. The RIU’s submissions should be filed with the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority ([email protected]) no later than 4.00pm Thursday 20 April 2017. The submissions will then be sent to Mr Hunter is to file his submissions to the Executive Officer, Judicial Control Authority at the same email address by 4.00pm Monday 24 April 2017.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Wallis submitted that Mr Hunter is a reasonably busy Otago/Southland driver having competed in 165 races last season and in 99 races this season up to 18 April 2017. This is Mr Hunter’s third breach of the rule within three months, his most recent was a four day suspension. His use of the whip was at the top end of the scale (22 strikes).
The starting point in the Judicial Control Authority’s guidelines for a second breach of this rule is a 3-5 day suspension. Taking into account the aggravating features mentioned above the Stewards were seeking a suspension of five days.
Mr Hunter made no specific submissions on penalty other than the penalty be at the lower end of the scale. He reiterated that he had used his whip within the guidelines, as he understood them to be, had modified his use of the whip, and believed he had not breached the rule.
reasonsforpenalty:
Given that this is Mr Hunter’s third breach of the rule within three months we adopt a starting point of five days suspension. There are no mitigating factors, other than the fact that Mr Hunter has told us he had modified his whip action and was doing his best to comply with the guideline, as he understood it to read.
penalty:
The use of the whip was excessive and continuous (22 strikes). Mr Hunter is suspended from the completion of racing at Gore on the 6th May up to and including Forbury Park on the 1st June 2017 (5 days).
These days include the following: Forbury Park 11th May, Winton 17th May, Invercargill on the 20th and 27th May and Forbury Park 1st June 2017.
P Knowles
Chair
5 May 2017
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2)(a)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr P Hunter - Open Horseman
Otherperson: Mr C Boyd - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: ace417f9ed1b0c225556210ef1f5417f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 8bbc96b1871f112ef1e4259e5d8b2330
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 1
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 09/04/2017
meet_title: Winton HRC - 9 April 2017
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: winton-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: PKnowles
meet_pm1: GHall
meet_pm2: none
name: Winton HRC