Canterbury JC 23 February 2018 – R 8 – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA13041
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury JC - 23 February 2018
Meet Chair:
SChing
Meet Committee Member 1:
GClapp
Race Date:
2018/02/23
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Accordingly, Mr Moseley was fined the sum of $500.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, the Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, against Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr T Moseley, alleging that Mr Moseley, used the whip in an excessive manner when riding ZAH WANTED.
Mr Moseley was present at the hearing of the information. Mr Moseley had endorsed the information that the breach was not admitted which he confirmed at the hearing. He also confirmed that he understood the rule he was being charged with.
Rule 638 provides as follows:
(3) A Rider shall not:
(b) strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is:
(ii) excessive
The “Guidelines with Respect to Acceptable Use of the Whip” provide as follows:
Without affecting the generality of Rule 638(3)(b) a rider may be penalised if their whip use is outside of the following guidelines:
Inside the final 600 metres of any Race, official trial or jump-out a horse may be struck with the drawn whip up to five times after which the rider must cease their use of the whip for a minimum of five strides before striking the horse again with the drawn whip, with this restriction to apply prior to the final 100 metres. The whip may then be used at the rider’s discretion until the winning post is reached. Prior to the final 600 metres of a race, official trial or jump-out the use of the drawn whip is acceptable if used in moderation and not continually.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr McLaughlin with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, showed video replays of the final 250 metres of the race. He pointed out Mr Moseley riding ZAH WANTED racing in 4th or 5th position approaching the 200m. Mr Williamson showed that prior to the 100m, Mr Moseley drew the whip and struck ZAH WANTED 4 times before pausing for 4 strides before using the whip on a further 4 occasions before the 100m mark. He stated that Mr Moseley did give a break for 4 strides but not the required respite of 5 strides that is outlined in the Whip Guidelines. Mr Williamson acknowledged that this was low level and only 1 stride outside the Guidelines but stated that all riders and Stewards were advised that there has to be a clear 5 strides between use of the whip prior to the 100m. He stated that the Guidelines provided that there were to be “ a minimum of 5 strides” between use of the whip.
Mr Moseley in defence stated that he was borderline 5 strides with his pause between strikes. He said he struck ZAH WANTED on the 5th stride which he believed was within the Guidelines. He said it was splitting hairs when we were considering a breach concerning possibly 1 stride.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence produced and reviewed the available films of the alleged breach. After reviewing the relevant video replays the Committee was satisfied that inside the 200m, Mr Moseley had used his whip 4 times before pausing and there after used his whip again on 4 occasions prior to the 100m. We were also satisfied that Mr Moseley had paused for 4 clear strides and had struck ZAH WANTED on the 5th stride and was therefore in breach of the Whip Guidelines and the rule.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that Mr Moseley’s record showed a previous breach on 11 November 2017 at Riccarton where he received a $300 fine. He said the JCA Penalty Guide provides a $500 fine for a second breach of this rule within a 12-month period. The breach, he said, was at a low level and submitted that a fine $500 be considered as penalty.
Mr Moseley requested that a minimum fine be imposed.
Reasons for Penalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to the starting point of a $500 fine mitigation inclusive, for a second breach of this Rule. There were no aggravating factors to consider so therefore no uplift in penalty was warranted. We agreed with the Stewards that this breach was low level but with mitigation already included in the $500 starting point, determined that a fine of $500 was an appropriate penalty.
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: 39df008f7930eabf21e72506dfb4d7d8
informantnumber: A8139
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Excessive use of the whip
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/02/2018
hearing_title: Canterbury JC 23 February 2018 - R 8 - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, the Racecourse Hotel & Motor Lodge Rating 65, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr J McLaughlin, against Licensed Jockey (Class A), Mr T Moseley, alleging that Mr Moseley, used the whip in an excessive manner when riding ZAH WANTED.
Mr Moseley was present at the hearing of the information. Mr Moseley had endorsed the information that the breach was not admitted which he confirmed at the hearing. He also confirmed that he understood the rule he was being charged with.
Rule 638 provides as follows:
(3) A Rider shall not:
(b) strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is:
(ii) excessive
The “Guidelines with Respect to Acceptable Use of the Whip” provide as follows:
Without affecting the generality of Rule 638(3)(b) a rider may be penalised if their whip use is outside of the following guidelines:
Inside the final 600 metres of any Race, official trial or jump-out a horse may be struck with the drawn whip up to five times after which the rider must cease their use of the whip for a minimum of five strides before striking the horse again with the drawn whip, with this restriction to apply prior to the final 100 metres. The whip may then be used at the rider’s discretion until the winning post is reached. Prior to the final 600 metres of a race, official trial or jump-out the use of the drawn whip is acceptable if used in moderation and not continually.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr McLaughlin with the assistance of Stipendiary Steward, Mr M Williamson, showed video replays of the final 250 metres of the race. He pointed out Mr Moseley riding ZAH WANTED racing in 4th or 5th position approaching the 200m. Mr Williamson showed that prior to the 100m, Mr Moseley drew the whip and struck ZAH WANTED 4 times before pausing for 4 strides before using the whip on a further 4 occasions before the 100m mark. He stated that Mr Moseley did give a break for 4 strides but not the required respite of 5 strides that is outlined in the Whip Guidelines. Mr Williamson acknowledged that this was low level and only 1 stride outside the Guidelines but stated that all riders and Stewards were advised that there has to be a clear 5 strides between use of the whip prior to the 100m. He stated that the Guidelines provided that there were to be “ a minimum of 5 strides” between use of the whip.
Mr Moseley in defence stated that he was borderline 5 strides with his pause between strikes. He said he struck ZAH WANTED on the 5th stride which he believed was within the Guidelines. He said it was splitting hairs when we were considering a breach concerning possibly 1 stride.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered the evidence produced and reviewed the available films of the alleged breach. After reviewing the relevant video replays the Committee was satisfied that inside the 200m, Mr Moseley had used his whip 4 times before pausing and there after used his whip again on 4 occasions prior to the 100m. We were also satisfied that Mr Moseley had paused for 4 clear strides and had struck ZAH WANTED on the 5th stride and was therefore in breach of the Whip Guidelines and the rule.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr McLaughlin told the Committee that Mr Moseley’s record showed a previous breach on 11 November 2017 at Riccarton where he received a $300 fine. He said the JCA Penalty Guide provides a $500 fine for a second breach of this rule within a 12-month period. The breach, he said, was at a low level and submitted that a fine $500 be considered as penalty.
Mr Moseley requested that a minimum fine be imposed.
reasonsforpenalty:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to the starting point of a $500 fine mitigation inclusive, for a second breach of this Rule. There were no aggravating factors to consider so therefore no uplift in penalty was warranted. We agreed with the Stewards that this breach was low level but with mitigation already included in the $500 starting point, determined that a fine of $500 was an appropriate penalty.
penalty:
Accordingly, Mr Moseley was fined the sum of $500.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638 (3) (b) (ii)
Informant: J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: T Moseley, Licensed Jockey (Class A)
Otherperson: Mr M Williamson - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 33427a8bc4866f0ef4b2085e3a69c58d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 095117e79abdede5d637f6dbc2dd1746
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 23/02/2018
meet_title: Canterbury JC - 23 February 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-jc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: SChing
meet_pm1: GClapp
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury JC