NZ Metro TC – 9 May 2009 – Race 5
ID: JCA18698
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 9 May 2009
Race Date:
2009/05/09
Race Number:
Race 5
Decision:
Following the running of Race 5, NRM (NZ) Sires’ Stakes 2-Year-Old Trotters Championship, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr A. L. Clark the driver of THE FIERY GINGA (7) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that Mr Clark used his whip no less than 20 times over the final 400m which Stipendiary Stewards deem to be excessive.”
--
Following the running of Race 5, NRM (NZ) Sires’ Stakes 2-Year-Old Trotters Championship, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr A. L. Clark the driver of THE FIERY GINGA (7) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that Mr Clark used his whip no less than 20 times over the final 400m which Stipendiary Stewards deem to be excessive.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive
or improper manner.”
Mr Clark had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Clark also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under. During the hearing Mr Clark also agreed that he was familiar with and understood the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
--Mr Escott gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Clark had used his whip on about 21 or 22 occasions in the last 400 metres. Mr Escott also said that this was in breach of the “Use of Whip” guidelines.
--Mr Clark gave evidence and said he was justified in using his whip in the way that he did. He said that it should be taken into account that the horse was a red hot favourite, and that every time he hit the horse in the straight he was making ground on the horse that was in front. Mr Clark also said that if he had stopped driving his horse it would have stopped, and that this was a $60,000-00 race, and that it shouldn’t be expected that he would stop driving his horse just because he had exceeded what the Stipendiary Stewards considered was enough.
--At this stage there was some general discussion about the whip guidelines, and it was clear that Mr Clark did not agree with them.
--In response to this evidence Mr Escott read the following excerpt from the Enright decision.
--“All horses are meant to compete in the race under the same conditions and Rules. If a horse has an inherent flaw in its personality or makeup so that it needs to be ridden hard with the whip, sobeit. But it still must only be ridden within the provisions of the Rules of Racing. Likewise it is not an excuse for a breach of the Rules for one to say it was necessary to ride in that particular way in order to win a race. If the horse race cannot be won within the application of the Rules of Racing which govern the manner in which the race is to be run, then sobeit and it cannot win. The same rules apply to all competitors and if there is some inherent deficiency or makeup in the character or ability of a horse that requires it to be treated in a way that is outside the Rules then that is not permitted.”
--This is an appeals case [M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996)] which deals with excuses for excessive use of the whip. A jockey (M. J. Enright) was the rider of FIGHTER BOY, and in his defence he said that he needed to use his whip as often as he did in order to win the race.
--This is a case which we use as a guideline because it was an appeals decision and a Q.C. was the chairman, so it was quite an important case and there are similarities between the rules of excessive use of the whip by a jockey and a harness racing driver. In fact Harness Racing Rules says “too much” and so does this particular decision.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. The “Use of the Whip” guidelines have been in place for a considerable time, and all horsemen know or should know what these guidelines are. If a driver keeps within these guidelines he should confidently expect not to be charged with excessive use of the whip. These guidelines are as follows.
--“Excessive use of the whip simply means “too much” and relates to the number of times and/or the force with which the whip is used.
Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.
A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.
Unnecessary use of the whip includes –
i) Striking an obviously beaten runner
ii) Using whip after the winning post
Improper use of the whip includes –
i) Using the whip as a prod
ii) Using the whip butt end up
iii) Using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts
Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2) no horseman shall use the whip
continuously at any time during a race and there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or the use of the whip shall be interrupted by alternative acceptable actions.
These actions include:-
- Running the rein(s) over the horse’s rump
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump
- Running the whip through the horse’s tail”
We were satisfied that Mr Clark used his whip continuously on 21 or 22 occasions from about the 400 metre mark, and that there were no distinct pauses in this use. Also Mr Clark did not interrupt his use of the whip with alternative acceptable actions. Mr Clark’s defence was that he needed to use his whip in the way that he did because this was a $60,000-00 race, and that his horse was responding to the whip. This is not a valid excuse, and his use of the whip was clearly outside the “Use of the Whip” guidelines. We were therefore satisfied that Mr Clark had used his whip excessively.
On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Clark used his whip on at least 21 or 22 occasions over the final 400 metres of the Race. Mr Clark did not dispute this number.
--Mr Escott’s case was that such use was in breach of the “Use of the Whip” guidelines, and Mr Clark agreed that he was familiar with these guidelines.
--In his defence Mr Clark said that his horse made ground each time he used the whip, and that he had a responsibility to drive his horse out to the finish in this $60,000-00 race. In summary Mr Clark said he believed his use of the whip was justified in this case. In response to these submissions Mr Escott referred to the “Enright” decision which he read out an excerpt from.
--We are satisfied that Mr Clark’s use of the whip was clearly in breach of the “Use of the Whip” guidelines, both in the number of times he used it and because there were no distinct pauses in it’s use. We therefore find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr Escott advised that Mr Clark had no previous relevant convictions. He also said that it needed to be taken into account that this was a Group 2 race for a stake of $60,000-00. A fine of between $300-00 and $350-00 was recommended.
--Mr Clark said that he disagreed with linking the amount of the fine to the status of the race, and that there was no interference to other horses. Mr Clark believed that a fine of $200-00 would be appropriate.
--It was pointed out to Mr Clark that Rule 1114(2) requires a Judicial Committee to take into account such matters as it considers appropriate, including the status of the race and the stake payable.
--We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty. We were aware of previous penalties imposed in Group 1 races, and these had been fines of $450-00 and higher. We did not agree that a fine of $200-00 was an appropriate penalty in this case, and decided that a fine of $300-00 should be imposed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr Clark was fined the sum of $300-00.
----
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67989
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: 17c3fcc379c84c39a1c4362b62a70673
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 09/05/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 9 May 2009 - Race 5
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 5, NRM (NZ) Sires’ Stakes 2-Year-Old Trotters Championship, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr A. L. Clark the driver of THE FIERY GINGA (7) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that Mr Clark used his whip no less than 20 times over the final 400m which Stipendiary Stewards deem to be excessive.”
--
Following the running of Race 5, NRM (NZ) Sires’ Stakes 2-Year-Old Trotters Championship, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr A. L. Clark the driver of THE FIERY GINGA (7) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that Mr Clark used his whip no less than 20 times over the final 400m which Stipendiary Stewards deem to be excessive.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive
or improper manner.”
Mr Clark had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Clark also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under. During the hearing Mr Clark also agreed that he was familiar with and understood the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
--Mr Escott gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Clark had used his whip on about 21 or 22 occasions in the last 400 metres. Mr Escott also said that this was in breach of the “Use of Whip” guidelines.
--Mr Clark gave evidence and said he was justified in using his whip in the way that he did. He said that it should be taken into account that the horse was a red hot favourite, and that every time he hit the horse in the straight he was making ground on the horse that was in front. Mr Clark also said that if he had stopped driving his horse it would have stopped, and that this was a $60,000-00 race, and that it shouldn’t be expected that he would stop driving his horse just because he had exceeded what the Stipendiary Stewards considered was enough.
--At this stage there was some general discussion about the whip guidelines, and it was clear that Mr Clark did not agree with them.
--In response to this evidence Mr Escott read the following excerpt from the Enright decision.
--“All horses are meant to compete in the race under the same conditions and Rules. If a horse has an inherent flaw in its personality or makeup so that it needs to be ridden hard with the whip, sobeit. But it still must only be ridden within the provisions of the Rules of Racing. Likewise it is not an excuse for a breach of the Rules for one to say it was necessary to ride in that particular way in order to win a race. If the horse race cannot be won within the application of the Rules of Racing which govern the manner in which the race is to be run, then sobeit and it cannot win. The same rules apply to all competitors and if there is some inherent deficiency or makeup in the character or ability of a horse that requires it to be treated in a way that is outside the Rules then that is not permitted.”
--This is an appeals case [M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996)] which deals with excuses for excessive use of the whip. A jockey (M. J. Enright) was the rider of FIGHTER BOY, and in his defence he said that he needed to use his whip as often as he did in order to win the race.
--This is a case which we use as a guideline because it was an appeals decision and a Q.C. was the chairman, so it was quite an important case and there are similarities between the rules of excessive use of the whip by a jockey and a harness racing driver. In fact Harness Racing Rules says “too much” and so does this particular decision.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. The “Use of the Whip” guidelines have been in place for a considerable time, and all horsemen know or should know what these guidelines are. If a driver keeps within these guidelines he should confidently expect not to be charged with excessive use of the whip. These guidelines are as follows.
--“Excessive use of the whip simply means “too much” and relates to the number of times and/or the force with which the whip is used.
Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.
A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.
Unnecessary use of the whip includes –
i) Striking an obviously beaten runner
ii) Using whip after the winning post
Improper use of the whip includes –
i) Using the whip as a prod
ii) Using the whip butt end up
iii) Using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts
Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2) no horseman shall use the whip
continuously at any time during a race and there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or the use of the whip shall be interrupted by alternative acceptable actions.
These actions include:-
- Running the rein(s) over the horse’s rump
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump
- Running the whip through the horse’s tail”
We were satisfied that Mr Clark used his whip continuously on 21 or 22 occasions from about the 400 metre mark, and that there were no distinct pauses in this use. Also Mr Clark did not interrupt his use of the whip with alternative acceptable actions. Mr Clark’s defence was that he needed to use his whip in the way that he did because this was a $60,000-00 race, and that his horse was responding to the whip. This is not a valid excuse, and his use of the whip was clearly outside the “Use of the Whip” guidelines. We were therefore satisfied that Mr Clark had used his whip excessively.
On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Clark used his whip on at least 21 or 22 occasions over the final 400 metres of the Race. Mr Clark did not dispute this number.
--Mr Escott’s case was that such use was in breach of the “Use of the Whip” guidelines, and Mr Clark agreed that he was familiar with these guidelines.
--In his defence Mr Clark said that his horse made ground each time he used the whip, and that he had a responsibility to drive his horse out to the finish in this $60,000-00 race. In summary Mr Clark said he believed his use of the whip was justified in this case. In response to these submissions Mr Escott referred to the “Enright” decision which he read out an excerpt from.
--We are satisfied that Mr Clark’s use of the whip was clearly in breach of the “Use of the Whip” guidelines, both in the number of times he used it and because there were no distinct pauses in it’s use. We therefore find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr Escott advised that Mr Clark had no previous relevant convictions. He also said that it needed to be taken into account that this was a Group 2 race for a stake of $60,000-00. A fine of between $300-00 and $350-00 was recommended.
--Mr Clark said that he disagreed with linking the amount of the fine to the status of the race, and that there was no interference to other horses. Mr Clark believed that a fine of $200-00 would be appropriate.
--It was pointed out to Mr Clark that Rule 1114(2) requires a Judicial Committee to take into account such matters as it considers appropriate, including the status of the race and the stake payable.
--We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty. We were aware of previous penalties imposed in Group 1 races, and these had been fines of $450-00 and higher. We did not agree that a fine of $200-00 was an appropriate penalty in this case, and decided that a fine of $300-00 should be imposed.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr Clark was fined the sum of $300-00.
----
J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67989
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2, 1114.2
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 25fcde185d7151f58d87c2b88ad7b47b
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6eef8750c7089ca8aec104dcaaa496e3
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 09/05/2009
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 9 May 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC