Forbury Park TC 2 June 2011 – R9
ID: JCA15994
Meet Title:
Forbury Park TC - 2 June 2011
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
DSteel
Race Date:
2011/06/02
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
We accept that these strikes are not particularly forceful but they need not be to be in breach of the rule. We thus find the breach proved.
Penalty:
The defendant is fined the sum of $200.
Charge:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr J Webster, the junior driver of LADY SHAMROCK used his whip excessively over the final stages of the race.
Facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the video that before he turned for home Mr Webster commenced to use the whip. He counted some 37 strikes from that time until some 80 metres from the line. He acknowledged that the defendant was doing his best to finish in the best position, but was concerned as to the frequency of the strikes. He demonstrated a number of rapid strikes from the 550 metre mark while Mr Webster still held the reins in both hands. Shortly after turning for home he pointed out Mr Webster placed the reins in one hand, the whip in the other, and continued to use whip till the 80 metre mark, when he desisted.
Mr Webster said he did not believe he was in breach of the rule. He said he had broken up his strokes and the manner in which he used the whip would have been acceptable in South Australia. He said that before the home turn he was merely flicking the whip at the horse using the reins. He agreed with the stipendiary steward's assessment of the number of strikes. He said he had been instructed by the trainer to drive the horse aggressively and asked us to note on the video that it was pacing freely at this time, whereas it had been pacing roughly when he had not used the whip. He demonstrated the horse broke over the final stages when he had stopped using the whip.
Mr Barron said what was excessive was a matter of opinion. He counted 18 strikes, a break in use and a change in action, and then another 16 strikes. He said the horse was pacing better when being chased up and emphasised the defendant had stopped using the whip when it was clearly not going to run in first six.
Submissions for Decision:
As above.
Reasons for Decision:
We count 37 strikes with the whip. This is just too much and, in our view, is “excessive” for the purpose of the rule. We accept that from the 550 metre mark to the home turn the 20 or so strikes were simultaneous with the use of the reins but these actions still count for the purposes of the rule. There is a brief respite at the top of the straight before the defendant changes his whip action from the hand with the reins to using the whip some 15 to 16 times with one hand and the reins in the other. One of these strikes, we note, was a back-hander.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which showed one breach of the equivalent rule in South Australia in the previous 12 months.
Mr Webster explained that the breach did not relate to excessive use but rather to the manner in which he had used the whip.
Reasons for Penalty:
We see a significant mitigating factor being the instructions the defendant had received from the trainer to drive the horse aggressively and accept the video appears to demonstrate that the horse had paced more freely when the whip is used. We also accept that the horse had a chance of finishing in 6th placing and the defendant stopped using the whip at the 80 metre mark when it was evident that LADY SHAMROCK was not going to finish closer. We note this is the defendant’s first night driving in New Zealand and we accept the whip rule is different in this country but the defendant must learn to adapt quickly to the New Zealand rule. We treat the defendant as a first offender and, although the number of strikes was high, they were simultaneous with the use of the reins, there was a respite and a change in action. The fact that the defendant did not admit the breach is understandable in these circumstances.
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: ad4c29799ad05cefbc0de1aa8d9e185c
informantnumber: 68875
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 25/05/2011
hearing_title: Forbury Park TC 2 June 2011 - R9
charge:
Mr Allison, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr J Webster, the junior driver of LADY SHAMROCK used his whip excessively over the final stages of the race.
facts:
Mr Allison demonstrated on the video that before he turned for home Mr Webster commenced to use the whip. He counted some 37 strikes from that time until some 80 metres from the line. He acknowledged that the defendant was doing his best to finish in the best position, but was concerned as to the frequency of the strikes. He demonstrated a number of rapid strikes from the 550 metre mark while Mr Webster still held the reins in both hands. Shortly after turning for home he pointed out Mr Webster placed the reins in one hand, the whip in the other, and continued to use whip till the 80 metre mark, when he desisted.
Mr Webster said he did not believe he was in breach of the rule. He said he had broken up his strokes and the manner in which he used the whip would have been acceptable in South Australia. He said that before the home turn he was merely flicking the whip at the horse using the reins. He agreed with the stipendiary steward's assessment of the number of strikes. He said he had been instructed by the trainer to drive the horse aggressively and asked us to note on the video that it was pacing freely at this time, whereas it had been pacing roughly when he had not used the whip. He demonstrated the horse broke over the final stages when he had stopped using the whip.
Mr Barron said what was excessive was a matter of opinion. He counted 18 strikes, a break in use and a change in action, and then another 16 strikes. He said the horse was pacing better when being chased up and emphasised the defendant had stopped using the whip when it was clearly not going to run in first six.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
As above.
reasonsfordecision:
We count 37 strikes with the whip. This is just too much and, in our view, is “excessive” for the purpose of the rule. We accept that from the 550 metre mark to the home turn the 20 or so strikes were simultaneous with the use of the reins but these actions still count for the purposes of the rule. There is a brief respite at the top of the straight before the defendant changes his whip action from the hand with the reins to using the whip some 15 to 16 times with one hand and the reins in the other. One of these strikes, we note, was a back-hander.
Decision:
We accept that these strikes are not particularly forceful but they need not be to be in breach of the rule. We thus find the breach proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Allison produced the defendant’s record, which showed one breach of the equivalent rule in South Australia in the previous 12 months.
Mr Webster explained that the breach did not relate to excessive use but rather to the manner in which he had used the whip.
reasonsforpenalty:
We see a significant mitigating factor being the instructions the defendant had received from the trainer to drive the horse aggressively and accept the video appears to demonstrate that the horse had paced more freely when the whip is used. We also accept that the horse had a chance of finishing in 6th placing and the defendant stopped using the whip at the 80 metre mark when it was evident that LADY SHAMROCK was not going to finish closer. We note this is the defendant’s first night driving in New Zealand and we accept the whip rule is different in this country but the defendant must learn to adapt quickly to the New Zealand rule. We treat the defendant as a first offender and, although the number of strikes was high, they were simultaneous with the use of the reins, there was a respite and a change in action. The fact that the defendant did not admit the breach is understandable in these circumstances.
penalty:
The defendant is fined the sum of $200.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2)(a)
Informant: Mr C Allison
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Webster
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 8e16751aa65a3ca3df42564c1bef9f67
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: fbc2d216c641bf2a78c3becea9b455e5
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/06/2011
meet_title: Forbury Park TC - 2 June 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: forbury-park-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: DSteel
meet_pm2: none
name: Forbury Park TC