Oamaru HRC – 1 February 2009 – Race 1

Mr Escott alleged that Mr Jones was in breach of rule 869(2)(a) in that he used his whip in an unnecessary manner in the run home. He demonstrated on the videos that between the 400 and 350 metre mark Mr Jones used his whip on BRAITHWAITE when travelling at the rear of the field in last position. Mr Escott stated BRAITHWAITE was a tiring horse and the strikes with the whip, which he described as 5 or 6 were unnecessary. He emphasised the bad publicity harness racing receives when a whip is used in an unnecessary fashion, as he was alleging in this instance.

Mr Escott alleged that Mr Jones was in breach of rule 869(2)(a) in that he used his whip in an unnecessary manner in the run home. He demonstrated on the videos that between the 400 and 350 metre mark Mr Jones used his whip on BRAITHWAITE when travelling at the rear of the field in last position. Mr Escott stated BRAITHWAITE was a tiring horse and the strikes with the whip, which he described as 5 or 6 were unnecessary. He emphasised the bad publicity harness racing receives when a whip is used in an unnecessary fashion, as he was alleging in this instance.

Mr Jones said immediately before using the whip he had pulled the plugs, and then the blinds, which the horse was wearing for the first time, and in his opinion the horse was still "travelling easy". He said he was obliged under the Rules of Harness Racing to try the horse and his striking the horse was simply to encourage it to give of its best. He emphasised it was only 5 strikes on the rump and that he had put the whip away once BRAITHWAITE failed to respond. He said he believed the horse should have run on better given its recent workout form, and he believed the trainer was no going to persevere with the horse.

We find that BRAITHWAITE was approximately 2 lengths off the back of the main body of the field at the 400 metres when Mr Jones struck his horse 5 times in a forceful manner. Mr Jones has an obligation in his professional capacity to give his horse every opportunity, but this obligation is tempered by a requirement to fall within the Rules of Harness Racing. It is evident from the time BRAITHWAITE is first struck that it has nothing more to give and it has failed to respond to any of Mr Jones’s further strikes with the whip. We note that the back straight video demonstrates that the second last strike, when the horse was clearly not responding to Mr Jones, was the most forceful of the 5 strikes. We believe these strikes with the whip on the rump of the horse, when it is clearly trailing the field some 400 metres from the finish, are beyond what is necessary to try the horse in these particular circumstances. We therefore find the charge proved.

Mr Escott has asked for a fine of $250. It is agreed that Mr Jones has been spoken to previously concerning this rule, but we also note that his record is clear with respect to breaches of this rule. We believe the breach is towards the lower end and can be met with by a fine of $200 on this occasion. Mr Jones, however, needs to be aware that any further breach of this rule, with respect to unnecessary use of the whip, is likely to be met by a substantial penalty, including the possibility of a suspension.

Geoff Hall Chairman

David Steel Member