Invercargill HRC 18 May 2013 – R 10
ID: JCA17818
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 18 May 2013
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
PKnowles
Race Date:
2013/05/18
Race Number:
R10
Decision:
However, the contravention of a mutually agreed guideline and the continuous nature and frequency of the strikes on this occasion, lead us to conclude that r 869(2)(a) has been breached.
Penalty:
We make it plain to Mr Thomas that should a further breach of this rule be found to be proved, we would expect the committee to have regard, when establishing penalty, to the fact that this warning has been given.
Charge:
Mr Renault alleged that Mr Thomas (ARANCIA) used his whip excessively in the run home in race 10.
Rule 869(2) states: “No horseman shall during any race use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
Facts:
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that the defendant used his whip 28 times in the home straight. He acknowledged immediately that Mr Thomas had never hit the horse. All the strikes were to the dust cover but they were continuous.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault produced the “Whip Guidelines”, which he explained had been compiled after consultation by the RIU, HRNZ and the Horsemen’s Association. These clearly stated that strikes to the sulky shafts or to the dust cover were to be encompassed by r 869(2)(a) (the excessive use of the whip rule). Mr Renault emphasised it was a perception issue. He accepted that members of the industry would readily see that the strikes were not to the horse but emphasised that this might not be the public's perception.
Mr Thomas accepted he had used the whip 27 times in the home straight and emphasised that he had never hit the horse. He said perversely he was looking after the horse but had been brought into the room to face an excessive use charge. He asked what was worse, hitting the horse 7, 8 or more times or not hitting it at all. He stressed he believed the former example was the worse of the two. He described the guideline as “ridiculous”, as it did nothing to protect the welfare of the horse. In his view, the charge was merely “revenue gathering” by the RIU.
Reasons for Decision:
We note that the guideline is of uncertain status. It does not have the authority of a rule or regulation. Nonetheless, it has been promulgated to assist with the interpretation of r 869(2)(a). We are concerned as to the continuous nature of the defendant’s actions. There were 27 strikes by our count with no respite. We agree the strikes were all to the dust sheet and that the horse was never hit. We accept that continuous use of the whip is not an image that the industry wishes to portray but we believe it would be obvious to all but those uneducated in industry matters, that the strikes were not sufficiently far forward of the seat of the cart to have made contact with the horse.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Renault produced the defendant’s record, which was clear under this rule. Mr Thomas had had over 20 drives this season and 62 last season. He submitted that the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide for a breach of this rule was a fine of $250. He acknowledged some discount was appropriate having regard to the nature of the breach and the defendant’s record.
Mr Thomas stated that he was unaware of the guideline and reiterated his actions were motivated by a desire to get the best out of the horse without actually hitting it.
Reasons for Penalty:
We accept Mr Thomas’s statement that he was unaware of the guideline. Nonetheless, Mr Renault has informed us that the guideline had been published in the Harness Racing Weekly and we accept it was there to be read by the defendant. However, giving a little weight to this factor and, more particularly, that there was never a strike to the horse, we believe the matter can be dealt with by the way of a formal written warning which will be entered on the defendant’s record.
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: f1561f2e62d136c5c3f372b531ec6a5d
informantnumber: A1980
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 07/05/2013
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 18 May 2013 - R 10
charge:
Mr Renault alleged that Mr Thomas (ARANCIA) used his whip excessively in the run home in race 10.
Rule 869(2) states: “No horseman shall during any race use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
facts:
Mr Renault demonstrated on the videos that the defendant used his whip 28 times in the home straight. He acknowledged immediately that Mr Thomas had never hit the horse. All the strikes were to the dust cover but they were continuous.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault produced the “Whip Guidelines”, which he explained had been compiled after consultation by the RIU, HRNZ and the Horsemen’s Association. These clearly stated that strikes to the sulky shafts or to the dust cover were to be encompassed by r 869(2)(a) (the excessive use of the whip rule). Mr Renault emphasised it was a perception issue. He accepted that members of the industry would readily see that the strikes were not to the horse but emphasised that this might not be the public's perception.
Mr Thomas accepted he had used the whip 27 times in the home straight and emphasised that he had never hit the horse. He said perversely he was looking after the horse but had been brought into the room to face an excessive use charge. He asked what was worse, hitting the horse 7, 8 or more times or not hitting it at all. He stressed he believed the former example was the worse of the two. He described the guideline as “ridiculous”, as it did nothing to protect the welfare of the horse. In his view, the charge was merely “revenue gathering” by the RIU.
reasonsfordecision:
We note that the guideline is of uncertain status. It does not have the authority of a rule or regulation. Nonetheless, it has been promulgated to assist with the interpretation of r 869(2)(a). We are concerned as to the continuous nature of the defendant’s actions. There were 27 strikes by our count with no respite. We agree the strikes were all to the dust sheet and that the horse was never hit. We accept that continuous use of the whip is not an image that the industry wishes to portray but we believe it would be obvious to all but those uneducated in industry matters, that the strikes were not sufficiently far forward of the seat of the cart to have made contact with the horse.
Decision:
However, the contravention of a mutually agreed guideline and the continuous nature and frequency of the strikes on this occasion, lead us to conclude that r 869(2)(a) has been breached.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Renault produced the defendant’s record, which was clear under this rule. Mr Thomas had had over 20 drives this season and 62 last season. He submitted that the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide for a breach of this rule was a fine of $250. He acknowledged some discount was appropriate having regard to the nature of the breach and the defendant’s record.
Mr Thomas stated that he was unaware of the guideline and reiterated his actions were motivated by a desire to get the best out of the horse without actually hitting it.
reasonsforpenalty:
We accept Mr Thomas’s statement that he was unaware of the guideline. Nonetheless, Mr Renault has informed us that the guideline had been published in the Harness Racing Weekly and we accept it was there to be read by the defendant. However, giving a little weight to this factor and, more particularly, that there was never a strike to the horse, we believe the matter can be dealt with by the way of a formal written warning which will be entered on the defendant’s record.
penalty:
We make it plain to Mr Thomas that should a further breach of this rule be found to be proved, we would expect the committee to have regard, when establishing penalty, to the fact that this warning has been given.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2)(a)
Informant: Mr S Renault, stipendiary steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr G Thomas, licensed horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 7e9efe1a2e1d4c94a727fda51b199d08
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c9bc79ad010886b10513d4e4ecf63444
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 18/05/2013
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 18 May 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: PKnowles
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC