Waikouaiti RC 1 January 2015 – R 9
ID: JCA15259
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikouaiti RC - 1 January 2015
Meet Chair:
PKnowles
Meet Committee Member 1:
GHall
Race Date:
2015/01/01
Race Number:
R 9
Decision:
We are satisfied that in shoeing FANTAMO Mr McCraw was involved in an activity related to the conduct of racing.
We find that the use of an implement in these circumstances and in the manner adopted by Mr McCraw to be beyond the realms of any reasonable disciplinary measure and to be in breach of the Rules. The charge of misconduct is thus proved.
The evidence before us as to Mr McCraw’s good character, which we accept, will be considered when imposing penalty.
We require the informant to provide the Committee with written submissions as to penalty within 7 working days of receipt of this decision. Mr McCraw is to respond within a similar time frame after his receipt of the informant’s penalty submissions.
Facts:
At the meeting of the Waikouaiti RC at Waikouaiti Racecourse on 1 January 2015, Mr B Kitto filed an Information alleging Mr B McCraw breached Rule 340. The information alleged…On the 1st day of January, 2015, at the Waikouaiti Racecourse, being an Official, being the Plate Inspector, while shoeing the mare FANTAMO, which was entered in Race # 9, Mr McCraw did misconduct himself by striking the said horse on more than one occasion with a farrier’s hammer.
Rule 340 states:
A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.
Mr McCraw was present at the hearing and did not admit the breach.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Kitto called two witnesses to give evidence that they had seen Mr McCraw strike FANTAMO several times with a farrier’s hammer. As a result of the incident the Club Veterinarian inspected the horse and recommended to Mr Kelvin Tyler (Trainer) the horse be late scratched from her engagement in Race #9 on the programme. Following his inquiries Mr Kitto interviewed Mr McCraw who admitted striking the horse with his farrier’s hammer and was subsequently charged with a breach of the Rule.
Miss Mary Kelly stated she was sitting with a group of friends about five metres from where FANTAMO was being shod near the stable area. She said the group heard Mr McCraw raising his voice and saw him strike the horse on the neck/shoulder area with his hand. She was not sure if he had a file (rasp) in his hand or not. He was getting agitated and called the horse a “bitch. There was a young girl holding the horse and she was not sure if he was talking to her or the horse”, but she thought it was the horse. She said he then struck the horse two/three times with the hammer on the horse’s flank near a back leg. She demonstrated with the hammer in her left hand a blow like a baseball swing. She believed Mr McCraw was in a “shitty” mood and she could not see any reason for him to behave as he did. Miss Kelly identified the farrier’s hammer when shown to her by Mr Kitto as being the one she believed the respondent had used. When questioned by Mr McCraw, she said the blows were not forceful but were with some force and were “hard enough”. She said she never saw the horse hit Mr McCraw but it did kick out with its back leg. She said she did not see the horse’s reaction to the blows.
Ms Rebecca Black, Licensed Apprentice Jockey, stated she was in charge of the horse when FANTAMO arrived at the meeting. The horse had raced at Kurow (30 January) and had been stabled at Oamaru until the Waikouaiti meeting. After the Kurow meeting FANTAMO had lost a front shoe and the other front shoe required some attention. She had approached Mr McCraw to shoe the mare’s front feet and he had agreed to do so. In her opinion Mr McCraw was in a “growly mood”. He had said he was the Plating Steward and not the farrier. It was not his job to shoe the horse. She said she had said she was grateful he had agreed to shoe FANTAMO.
Ms Black said when shoeing the near side front the mare became fractious and was stamping her foot. Mr McCraw started growling and shouting at the horse and hitting her. He struck FANTAMO several times with his hand on her near side shoulder/neck area. The mare tried to cow-kick him several times but she believed that was due to him lifting FANTAMO’s front knee up and twisting it sideways. She said the horse was definitely in pain and was reacting to this by cow-kicking. It was at this point that she saw him strike the horse two or three times with the hammer on her near side flank area. They were solid hits. The strikes gave a thudding sound. She described these as being wide arm swings, as you would do with a bat in a game of baseball. The strikes were to the horse’s belly or flank, at the end of the rib-cage. She never saw the respondent strike the horse with a file or rasp. The first strikes were with his hand. She said Mr McCraw was giving the horse “a hard time” and she was patting the horse on the neck to calm her down. She said there was no need for Mr McCraw to hit the horse with the hammer and she was “beside herself” and had told the farrier to “back off, that’s enough.” Ms Black said Mr McCraw’s response was to abuse her. She then reported the incident to Mr Kitto. Ms Black identified the farrier’s hammer when shown to her by Mr Kitto as being the one the respondent had used.
Mr Peter Gillespie, Club Veterinarian, said he had 35 years’ veterinarian experience. He identified a document produced by Mr Kitto as being the Horse Incident / Examination Report he had completed after inspecting FANTAMO on two occasions that afternoon at Mr Kitto’s request. He said he had first examined the mare at 1.22pm in the presence of Mr Kitto and Ms Black. As he had stated in his report, he found a palm sized soft tissue swelling on the mare’s near-side flank abdominal muscle area, which was sensitive to touch. When he touched the area FANTAMO lifted her near hind leg. He examined the off-side flank for any soft tissue swelling in the same area and did not find any, and on touching that area the mare did not show any signs of discomfort. He did not find any signs of swelling or injury to the mare’s near side shoulder/neck area.
At 1.51pm he re-examined the mare in the presence of the mare’s trainer, Mr Kelvin Tyler. This examination revealed no noticeable change. He was of the opinion the mare’s injury to her trunk would affect her breathing and he recommended she be scratched from her engagement at the meeting.
Mr Gillespie also stated that the injury was consistent with a hammer being used and was not in an area where a horse normally suffered injuries from being transported or in a stabling environment. Those typical injuries usually occurred on a horse’s hip, shoulder or legs. He agreed vets and farriers had difficult jobs and that horses from time to time needed corrective discipline. He said if he had a need to discipline a horse he would slap it with an open hand. He could not condone the use of an object.
Mr Tyler, trainer of FANTAMO, stated he had left the mare in the care of Ms Black after the Kurow meeting. Ms Black had informed him on his arriving at the racecourse that the mare had sustained an injury due to being struck with a hammer. He looked at the horse and saw it had swelling and inflammation at the back of the flank on the near side. As far as he was aware the mare had no similar injury after the Kurow meeting and she was 100% fit and ready to race at Waikouaiti. When questioned, he said he could both see and feel the injury.
Mr McCraw stated he had 25 years’ experience as a farrier and held the highest qualification certificate in farrier practice. He was employed by the Club as the Plate Inspector and was not on course to shoe horses, although but he often would do so when approached by trainers. In his opinion the poor state of the front shoes/feet on the mare was a result of the horse not being shod before the meeting.
Mr McCraw said the mare was fractious throughout being shod to the point where he had had to discipline her by slapping her on the neck/shoulder area. She had attempted to cow-kick him once and he suspected she was lining him up for another one when he struck her with the hammer on the near-side flank. He said he struck the horse twice with a back-handed swinging blow. He said he used his left hand, although he was right-handed. He stated that horses were dangerous animals and that he had recently recovered from a broken arm that was work related.
Mr McCraw disputed the veterinarian’s opinion and said the mare had also reared up when examined on the right hand (off) side by the vet. He said she was fractious anyway and would flinch when being touched.
Mr McCraw called a number of trainers and a farrier to give evidence.
Mr Steven Anderton, Licensed Trainer, stated Mr McCraw had shod horses for him for a number of years and he had never seen him raise a hammer or rasp to a horse in that time. This included dealing with fractious horses and he had never seen him lose his cool. He stated the use of a hammer on a horse was the wrong way to go about things. He would not condone its use.
Mr Gavin Fox said he had nine years full-time experience and 20 years as a casual farrier. He had watched FANTAMO from a distance being examined by the vet and found the mare reacted to being touched on both sides. He said the mare had reared up when the vet moved from one side to the other. He said if a horse cow-kicked he might use a hammer but only once. He said he had used a file once but never a hammer.
At this point the hearing was adjourned for an examination of FANTAMO in the stable area. Present at the examination were Mr Kitto, Mr Tyler, Ms Black, Mr McCraw and the Committee. When Mr Tyler ran his hand over the mare’s near-side flank she showed signs of discomfort and lifted her hind leg. On the opposite flank the mare showed no signs of discomfort and did not move at all.
At the resumed hearing Mr John Parsons, Licensed Trainer, stated that on raceday most horses were hyped up. He said any horse that tried to cow-kick a person had no respect for you. He said the onus was on trainers to have their horses ready and fit for racing. Mr McCraw had gone beyond the call of duty and was doing a job he was not employed to do. His only option was to discipline the horse or walk away. Mr Parsons said being a farrier was a dangerous occupation and if a horse required disciplining then that was acceptable.
Mr Michael Pitman, Licensed Trainer, stated he had been stabling horses at the track for about 25 years and had used Mr McCraw’s services many times. He had never had a problem with him and he had had young horses and bad horses in that time. Mr McCraw in the past had gone out of his way to assist people on raceday and the Club was very lucky to have him. He stated that it was acceptable for some discipline to be used but it depended on the circumstances. He said that the respondent had said to him that FANTAMO had cow-kicked and was a “mongrel”. He said a farrier might have to use whatever was at hand if it were a matter of self-preservation. The fact there was no welt evident on FANTAMO meant that Mr McCraw had not hit the horse hard. He agreed with the Committee that if he had had to late scratch a horse as a consequence of it receiving an injury through being deliberately struck by a farrier when being shod, he would be upset.
In summing up, Mr Kitto stated that Ms Black’s evidence was quite clear. She believed that the injury arose directly from the actions of Mr McCraw, and only his actions. She saw him strike the horse twice with his hammer. Miss Kelly was horrified by what she saw. She felt Mr McCraw was in a bad mood, as did Ms Black. The veterinarian examination revealed injuries consistent with being struck with blows from a hammer.
Mr McCraw stated that he had 25 years experience as a farrier. He said Ms Black was standing on the opposite side of the horse when the incident happened. He emphasised he had only struck the horse after it had attempted to cow-kick him and was lining him up for a second time. He said the horse should have been presented for racing in a safe manner, which it was not. It should have been shod weeks earlier and not on the day of the races. He believed he was put in danger by a person lacking in experience. He had shod other horses during the day without any problems. He said horses required some discipline and the incident happened out of self-preservation, not out of anger. The first cow-kick had only narrowly missed his head.
Reasons for Decision:
On 1 January 2015 Mr McCraw was employed by the Waikouaiti Racing Club to act as their Plate Inspector for the New Year’s Day Meeting. His regular trade is as a farrier. As a consequence it is not uncommon for him to be approached on the racecourse by trainers and asked to shoe their horses. We understand that he regularly assists trainers in this regard, even though it is not part of the duties of the Plate Inspector. On the day, Mr McCraw was approached by Ms Black, who had brought the mare FANTAMO to the track and was asked if he would re-plate the mare’s front feet. FANTAMO was entered for race # 9 the NZB INSURANCE PEARL SERIES RACE. Ms Black is an Apprentice Jockey attached to the stable of Mr Tyler.
Mr McCraw agreed and attended to the mare, which was in an open yard enclosure in the stable area, adjacent to the public car park. As he was shoeing the mare she became fractious. Ms Black said that during the re-plating Mr McCraw was in a “growly mood” and both she and Miss Kelly, a member of the public seated nearby, stated he started raising his voice to the horse. When shoeing the near front, on one occasion, he stopped and slapped the mare on the near-side shoulder and neck with the palm of his hand. Ms Black stated that as the mare became more and more fractious Mr McCraw responded by twisting the mare’s near-side knee, which led to the mare attempting to cow-kick him with her near hind foot.
She said Mr McCraw then struck the mare twice on the near-side flank with his farrier’s hammer. She remonstrated with him over his use of the hammer on the horse and was abused by him for doing so. Miss Kelly said she saw Mr McCraw slap the horse on the shoulder and a short time later saw him strike the horse with his shoeing hammer several times on its flank. She described Mr McCraw’s mood as being “shitty”.
Mr Kitto stated Ms Black approached him and made a formal complaint concerning Mr McCraw and his striking FANTAMO with his hammer. He interviewed Mr McCraw, who admitted using the hammer to strike the mare on several occasions. Mr Kitto then had the horse vetted by the Club Veterinarian, Mr Gillespie, who found a palm sized soft tissue swelling injury on the mare’s near-side flank. A short while later, in the presence of FANTAMO’s trainer Mr Tyler, he re-examined the mare and found no noticeable change in the swelling. He recommended to Mr Tyler that the mare’s breathing might be affected and that she should be late scratched from her race engagement on the day. Mr Tyler duly scratched the mare. We observe that Mr Gillespie’s examination report states that treatment was not required and a veterinarian examination was not required prior to FANTAMO racing again.
Mr McCraw’s defence to the charge is based on his experience as a farrier and the dangers associated with the profession. He said FANTAMO was proving very difficult to shoe and the mare’s first cow-kick missed his head only by inches. He admitted striking the mare several times but only as a disciplinary measure. We accept the evidence of Ms Black and Miss Kelly that Mr McCraw was not in a good mood. We are unable to determine whether this was because he was performing a task that he was not employed to do on raceday or because the horse was fractious, or a combination of the two. The last explanation is the most likely. Mr McCraw’s response, we find, was to first slap the horse with an open hand to the neck or shoulder of the horse. There is no suggestion that excessive force was used and we find that on this occasion this was an acceptable means by which to discipline the horse.
We are unable to determine whether Mr McCraw deliberately twisted the knee of the mare, as alleged by Ms Black. However, it is clear the mare did not appreciate the fact she was being shod and retaliated by endeavouring to cow-kick Mr McCraw. Ms Black does not dispute that the horse kicked out in this fashion and we accept Mr McCraw’s statement that the cow-kick came close to making contact with his person. Unfortunately, Mr McCraw responded by twice using the hammer in a baseball type back-handed swing with his left hand. We find the hammer was not used in a downward motion to hit the horse with the head of the hammer but rather the horse was struck with the full length of the hammer as it was swung parallel to the ground. Mr McCraw twice made contact with the horse on her near-side flank, at the end of the ribcage. A palm sized soft tissue swelling injury on the mare’s near-side flank was detectable by the veterinarian Mr Gillespie on two examinations within an hour or so of Mr McCraw hitting the horse. We are satisfied that this bruising was the result of Mr McCraw hitting the horse with the hammer in the manner previously described. The injury was such that the horse was late scratched.
When FANTAMO was lightly touched on the near-side flank some five hours after the incident the horse responded by kicking out. The area was thus still tender to touch. Mr McCraw disputed the evidence of Mr Gillespie stating the mare was “touchy” and had also reared when touched on the off-side. Mr Fox, on the other hand, stated the mare reared as the vet shifted from near to off-side during the examination and not when being touched on the off-side. However, when examined after the meeting in the presence of the Committee and at Mr McCraw’s request, the mare showed no signs of soreness on the off-side when touched. We prefer Mr Gillespie’s evidence that he detected only pain and swelling to the abdomen on the near (left)-side, which is supported by the report that he prepared after twice inspecting the mare.
Experienced trainers and a fellow farrier have given evidence that a horse on occasion may need disciplining. Three of these witnesses stated this might extend to the use of an object in circumstances of self-preservation, whilst one trainer and the veterinarian, Mr Gillespie, stated that an object should never be used. We accept that FANTAMO had attempted to cow-kick the respondent on at least one occasion before he used the hammer and that the horse had come close to kicking him. However, the opportunity was available to Mr McCraw to withdraw and take stock of the situation and, in particular, for him to adopt a measure other than striking the horse with a hammer. We believe his frustration when shoeing FANTAMO, and not the fact that his safety was in immediate peril and he was acting in self-preservation as a last resort, led to his striking the mare twice with his farrier’s hammer on the near-side flank.
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: 7c13daed8c2207f23023a8b2fa913b9d
informantnumber: A3879
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Misconduct
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 29/12/2014
hearing_title: Waikouaiti RC 1 January 2015 - R 9
charge:
facts:
At the meeting of the Waikouaiti RC at Waikouaiti Racecourse on 1 January 2015, Mr B Kitto filed an Information alleging Mr B McCraw breached Rule 340. The information alleged…On the 1st day of January, 2015, at the Waikouaiti Racecourse, being an Official, being the Plate Inspector, while shoeing the mare FANTAMO, which was entered in Race # 9, Mr McCraw did misconduct himself by striking the said horse on more than one occasion with a farrier’s hammer.
Rule 340 states:
A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.
Mr McCraw was present at the hearing and did not admit the breach.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Kitto called two witnesses to give evidence that they had seen Mr McCraw strike FANTAMO several times with a farrier’s hammer. As a result of the incident the Club Veterinarian inspected the horse and recommended to Mr Kelvin Tyler (Trainer) the horse be late scratched from her engagement in Race #9 on the programme. Following his inquiries Mr Kitto interviewed Mr McCraw who admitted striking the horse with his farrier’s hammer and was subsequently charged with a breach of the Rule.
Miss Mary Kelly stated she was sitting with a group of friends about five metres from where FANTAMO was being shod near the stable area. She said the group heard Mr McCraw raising his voice and saw him strike the horse on the neck/shoulder area with his hand. She was not sure if he had a file (rasp) in his hand or not. He was getting agitated and called the horse a “bitch. There was a young girl holding the horse and she was not sure if he was talking to her or the horse”, but she thought it was the horse. She said he then struck the horse two/three times with the hammer on the horse’s flank near a back leg. She demonstrated with the hammer in her left hand a blow like a baseball swing. She believed Mr McCraw was in a “shitty” mood and she could not see any reason for him to behave as he did. Miss Kelly identified the farrier’s hammer when shown to her by Mr Kitto as being the one she believed the respondent had used. When questioned by Mr McCraw, she said the blows were not forceful but were with some force and were “hard enough”. She said she never saw the horse hit Mr McCraw but it did kick out with its back leg. She said she did not see the horse’s reaction to the blows.
Ms Rebecca Black, Licensed Apprentice Jockey, stated she was in charge of the horse when FANTAMO arrived at the meeting. The horse had raced at Kurow (30 January) and had been stabled at Oamaru until the Waikouaiti meeting. After the Kurow meeting FANTAMO had lost a front shoe and the other front shoe required some attention. She had approached Mr McCraw to shoe the mare’s front feet and he had agreed to do so. In her opinion Mr McCraw was in a “growly mood”. He had said he was the Plating Steward and not the farrier. It was not his job to shoe the horse. She said she had said she was grateful he had agreed to shoe FANTAMO.
Ms Black said when shoeing the near side front the mare became fractious and was stamping her foot. Mr McCraw started growling and shouting at the horse and hitting her. He struck FANTAMO several times with his hand on her near side shoulder/neck area. The mare tried to cow-kick him several times but she believed that was due to him lifting FANTAMO’s front knee up and twisting it sideways. She said the horse was definitely in pain and was reacting to this by cow-kicking. It was at this point that she saw him strike the horse two or three times with the hammer on her near side flank area. They were solid hits. The strikes gave a thudding sound. She described these as being wide arm swings, as you would do with a bat in a game of baseball. The strikes were to the horse’s belly or flank, at the end of the rib-cage. She never saw the respondent strike the horse with a file or rasp. The first strikes were with his hand. She said Mr McCraw was giving the horse “a hard time” and she was patting the horse on the neck to calm her down. She said there was no need for Mr McCraw to hit the horse with the hammer and she was “beside herself” and had told the farrier to “back off, that’s enough.” Ms Black said Mr McCraw’s response was to abuse her. She then reported the incident to Mr Kitto. Ms Black identified the farrier’s hammer when shown to her by Mr Kitto as being the one the respondent had used.
Mr Peter Gillespie, Club Veterinarian, said he had 35 years’ veterinarian experience. He identified a document produced by Mr Kitto as being the Horse Incident / Examination Report he had completed after inspecting FANTAMO on two occasions that afternoon at Mr Kitto’s request. He said he had first examined the mare at 1.22pm in the presence of Mr Kitto and Ms Black. As he had stated in his report, he found a palm sized soft tissue swelling on the mare’s near-side flank abdominal muscle area, which was sensitive to touch. When he touched the area FANTAMO lifted her near hind leg. He examined the off-side flank for any soft tissue swelling in the same area and did not find any, and on touching that area the mare did not show any signs of discomfort. He did not find any signs of swelling or injury to the mare’s near side shoulder/neck area.
At 1.51pm he re-examined the mare in the presence of the mare’s trainer, Mr Kelvin Tyler. This examination revealed no noticeable change. He was of the opinion the mare’s injury to her trunk would affect her breathing and he recommended she be scratched from her engagement at the meeting.
Mr Gillespie also stated that the injury was consistent with a hammer being used and was not in an area where a horse normally suffered injuries from being transported or in a stabling environment. Those typical injuries usually occurred on a horse’s hip, shoulder or legs. He agreed vets and farriers had difficult jobs and that horses from time to time needed corrective discipline. He said if he had a need to discipline a horse he would slap it with an open hand. He could not condone the use of an object.
Mr Tyler, trainer of FANTAMO, stated he had left the mare in the care of Ms Black after the Kurow meeting. Ms Black had informed him on his arriving at the racecourse that the mare had sustained an injury due to being struck with a hammer. He looked at the horse and saw it had swelling and inflammation at the back of the flank on the near side. As far as he was aware the mare had no similar injury after the Kurow meeting and she was 100% fit and ready to race at Waikouaiti. When questioned, he said he could both see and feel the injury.
Mr McCraw stated he had 25 years’ experience as a farrier and held the highest qualification certificate in farrier practice. He was employed by the Club as the Plate Inspector and was not on course to shoe horses, although but he often would do so when approached by trainers. In his opinion the poor state of the front shoes/feet on the mare was a result of the horse not being shod before the meeting.
Mr McCraw said the mare was fractious throughout being shod to the point where he had had to discipline her by slapping her on the neck/shoulder area. She had attempted to cow-kick him once and he suspected she was lining him up for another one when he struck her with the hammer on the near-side flank. He said he struck the horse twice with a back-handed swinging blow. He said he used his left hand, although he was right-handed. He stated that horses were dangerous animals and that he had recently recovered from a broken arm that was work related.
Mr McCraw disputed the veterinarian’s opinion and said the mare had also reared up when examined on the right hand (off) side by the vet. He said she was fractious anyway and would flinch when being touched.
Mr McCraw called a number of trainers and a farrier to give evidence.
Mr Steven Anderton, Licensed Trainer, stated Mr McCraw had shod horses for him for a number of years and he had never seen him raise a hammer or rasp to a horse in that time. This included dealing with fractious horses and he had never seen him lose his cool. He stated the use of a hammer on a horse was the wrong way to go about things. He would not condone its use.
Mr Gavin Fox said he had nine years full-time experience and 20 years as a casual farrier. He had watched FANTAMO from a distance being examined by the vet and found the mare reacted to being touched on both sides. He said the mare had reared up when the vet moved from one side to the other. He said if a horse cow-kicked he might use a hammer but only once. He said he had used a file once but never a hammer.
At this point the hearing was adjourned for an examination of FANTAMO in the stable area. Present at the examination were Mr Kitto, Mr Tyler, Ms Black, Mr McCraw and the Committee. When Mr Tyler ran his hand over the mare’s near-side flank she showed signs of discomfort and lifted her hind leg. On the opposite flank the mare showed no signs of discomfort and did not move at all.
At the resumed hearing Mr John Parsons, Licensed Trainer, stated that on raceday most horses were hyped up. He said any horse that tried to cow-kick a person had no respect for you. He said the onus was on trainers to have their horses ready and fit for racing. Mr McCraw had gone beyond the call of duty and was doing a job he was not employed to do. His only option was to discipline the horse or walk away. Mr Parsons said being a farrier was a dangerous occupation and if a horse required disciplining then that was acceptable.
Mr Michael Pitman, Licensed Trainer, stated he had been stabling horses at the track for about 25 years and had used Mr McCraw’s services many times. He had never had a problem with him and he had had young horses and bad horses in that time. Mr McCraw in the past had gone out of his way to assist people on raceday and the Club was very lucky to have him. He stated that it was acceptable for some discipline to be used but it depended on the circumstances. He said that the respondent had said to him that FANTAMO had cow-kicked and was a “mongrel”. He said a farrier might have to use whatever was at hand if it were a matter of self-preservation. The fact there was no welt evident on FANTAMO meant that Mr McCraw had not hit the horse hard. He agreed with the Committee that if he had had to late scratch a horse as a consequence of it receiving an injury through being deliberately struck by a farrier when being shod, he would be upset.
In summing up, Mr Kitto stated that Ms Black’s evidence was quite clear. She believed that the injury arose directly from the actions of Mr McCraw, and only his actions. She saw him strike the horse twice with his hammer. Miss Kelly was horrified by what she saw. She felt Mr McCraw was in a bad mood, as did Ms Black. The veterinarian examination revealed injuries consistent with being struck with blows from a hammer.
Mr McCraw stated that he had 25 years experience as a farrier. He said Ms Black was standing on the opposite side of the horse when the incident happened. He emphasised he had only struck the horse after it had attempted to cow-kick him and was lining him up for a second time. He said the horse should have been presented for racing in a safe manner, which it was not. It should have been shod weeks earlier and not on the day of the races. He believed he was put in danger by a person lacking in experience. He had shod other horses during the day without any problems. He said horses required some discipline and the incident happened out of self-preservation, not out of anger. The first cow-kick had only narrowly missed his head.
reasonsfordecision:
On 1 January 2015 Mr McCraw was employed by the Waikouaiti Racing Club to act as their Plate Inspector for the New Year’s Day Meeting. His regular trade is as a farrier. As a consequence it is not uncommon for him to be approached on the racecourse by trainers and asked to shoe their horses. We understand that he regularly assists trainers in this regard, even though it is not part of the duties of the Plate Inspector. On the day, Mr McCraw was approached by Ms Black, who had brought the mare FANTAMO to the track and was asked if he would re-plate the mare’s front feet. FANTAMO was entered for race # 9 the NZB INSURANCE PEARL SERIES RACE. Ms Black is an Apprentice Jockey attached to the stable of Mr Tyler.
Mr McCraw agreed and attended to the mare, which was in an open yard enclosure in the stable area, adjacent to the public car park. As he was shoeing the mare she became fractious. Ms Black said that during the re-plating Mr McCraw was in a “growly mood” and both she and Miss Kelly, a member of the public seated nearby, stated he started raising his voice to the horse. When shoeing the near front, on one occasion, he stopped and slapped the mare on the near-side shoulder and neck with the palm of his hand. Ms Black stated that as the mare became more and more fractious Mr McCraw responded by twisting the mare’s near-side knee, which led to the mare attempting to cow-kick him with her near hind foot.
She said Mr McCraw then struck the mare twice on the near-side flank with his farrier’s hammer. She remonstrated with him over his use of the hammer on the horse and was abused by him for doing so. Miss Kelly said she saw Mr McCraw slap the horse on the shoulder and a short time later saw him strike the horse with his shoeing hammer several times on its flank. She described Mr McCraw’s mood as being “shitty”.
Mr Kitto stated Ms Black approached him and made a formal complaint concerning Mr McCraw and his striking FANTAMO with his hammer. He interviewed Mr McCraw, who admitted using the hammer to strike the mare on several occasions. Mr Kitto then had the horse vetted by the Club Veterinarian, Mr Gillespie, who found a palm sized soft tissue swelling injury on the mare’s near-side flank. A short while later, in the presence of FANTAMO’s trainer Mr Tyler, he re-examined the mare and found no noticeable change in the swelling. He recommended to Mr Tyler that the mare’s breathing might be affected and that she should be late scratched from her race engagement on the day. Mr Tyler duly scratched the mare. We observe that Mr Gillespie’s examination report states that treatment was not required and a veterinarian examination was not required prior to FANTAMO racing again.
Mr McCraw’s defence to the charge is based on his experience as a farrier and the dangers associated with the profession. He said FANTAMO was proving very difficult to shoe and the mare’s first cow-kick missed his head only by inches. He admitted striking the mare several times but only as a disciplinary measure. We accept the evidence of Ms Black and Miss Kelly that Mr McCraw was not in a good mood. We are unable to determine whether this was because he was performing a task that he was not employed to do on raceday or because the horse was fractious, or a combination of the two. The last explanation is the most likely. Mr McCraw’s response, we find, was to first slap the horse with an open hand to the neck or shoulder of the horse. There is no suggestion that excessive force was used and we find that on this occasion this was an acceptable means by which to discipline the horse.
We are unable to determine whether Mr McCraw deliberately twisted the knee of the mare, as alleged by Ms Black. However, it is clear the mare did not appreciate the fact she was being shod and retaliated by endeavouring to cow-kick Mr McCraw. Ms Black does not dispute that the horse kicked out in this fashion and we accept Mr McCraw’s statement that the cow-kick came close to making contact with his person. Unfortunately, Mr McCraw responded by twice using the hammer in a baseball type back-handed swing with his left hand. We find the hammer was not used in a downward motion to hit the horse with the head of the hammer but rather the horse was struck with the full length of the hammer as it was swung parallel to the ground. Mr McCraw twice made contact with the horse on her near-side flank, at the end of the ribcage. A palm sized soft tissue swelling injury on the mare’s near-side flank was detectable by the veterinarian Mr Gillespie on two examinations within an hour or so of Mr McCraw hitting the horse. We are satisfied that this bruising was the result of Mr McCraw hitting the horse with the hammer in the manner previously described. The injury was such that the horse was late scratched.
When FANTAMO was lightly touched on the near-side flank some five hours after the incident the horse responded by kicking out. The area was thus still tender to touch. Mr McCraw disputed the evidence of Mr Gillespie stating the mare was “touchy” and had also reared when touched on the off-side. Mr Fox, on the other hand, stated the mare reared as the vet shifted from near to off-side during the examination and not when being touched on the off-side. However, when examined after the meeting in the presence of the Committee and at Mr McCraw’s request, the mare showed no signs of soreness on the off-side when touched. We prefer Mr Gillespie’s evidence that he detected only pain and swelling to the abdomen on the near (left)-side, which is supported by the report that he prepared after twice inspecting the mare.
Experienced trainers and a fellow farrier have given evidence that a horse on occasion may need disciplining. Three of these witnesses stated this might extend to the use of an object in circumstances of self-preservation, whilst one trainer and the veterinarian, Mr Gillespie, stated that an object should never be used. We accept that FANTAMO had attempted to cow-kick the respondent on at least one occasion before he used the hammer and that the horse had come close to kicking him. However, the opportunity was available to Mr McCraw to withdraw and take stock of the situation and, in particular, for him to adopt a measure other than striking the horse with a hammer. We believe his frustration when shoeing FANTAMO, and not the fact that his safety was in immediate peril and he was acting in self-preservation as a last resort, led to his striking the mare twice with his farrier’s hammer on the near-side flank.
Decision:
We are satisfied that in shoeing FANTAMO Mr McCraw was involved in an activity related to the conduct of racing.
We find that the use of an implement in these circumstances and in the manner adopted by Mr McCraw to be beyond the realms of any reasonable disciplinary measure and to be in breach of the Rules. The charge of misconduct is thus proved.
The evidence before us as to Mr McCraw’s good character, which we accept, will be considered when imposing penalty.
We require the informant to provide the Committee with written submissions as to penalty within 7 working days of receipt of this decision. Mr McCraw is to respond within a similar time frame after his receipt of the informant’s penalty submissions.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 340
Informant: Mr B Kitto - Racing Investigator - RIU
JockeysandTrainer: Mr W McCraw - Plate Inspector
Otherperson: Miss M Kelly, Ms R Black - Licensed Apprentice Jockey, Mr P Gillespie - Club Veterinarian, Mr K Tyler - Licensed Trainer, Mr G Fox - Farrier, Mr S Anderton - Licensed Trainer, Mr J Parsons - Licensed Trainer, Mr M Pitman - Licensed Trainer
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 515bc0bffca77090c03fff686db9fab0
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 47fa7d74f62ddfd992ad4eaabd430599
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 01/01/2015
meet_title: Waikouaiti RC - 1 January 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikouaiti-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: PKnowles
meet_pm1: GHall
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikouaiti RC