NZ Metro TC 22 June 2012 – R 9 (heard on 24 June 2012 at Oamaru)

hearingid: 40fca221f7cdb035fd9cec86a28a12b4

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 22/06/2012

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC 22 June 2012 - R 9 (heard on 24 June 2012 at Oamaru)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr J Trainor - Junior Horseman
Information No: 1801
Meeting: New Zealand Metro Meeting

Venue: Addington
Date: 22 June 2012 (heard on 24 June 2012 at Oamaru)
Race: 9
Rule No: 869(2)(a)

Judicial Committee: G Hall, Chairman - D Steel, Committee Member
Present: Mr Trainor - Junior Horseman, Mr Smith - Open Horseman, Mr Dolan - Licensed Trainer

Charge:

Mr Renault, stipendiary steward, alleged that Mr Trainor, used his whip in an excessive manner when driving PHOEBE REVIVAL in race 9 at Addington on Friday 22 June last. The hearing of the matter was adjourned until today (Sunday 24 June).

Facts:
Mr Renault demonstrated on the video that the respondent had used the whip 20 times in the final 400 metres. He said that while there were some brief pauses, this was simply too much. He pointed out that a lot of the hitting was with full strikes, including backhanders.

Submissions:
Mr Renault explained that the policy of the Racing Integrity Unit was to consider whether to lay a charge where there were more than 16 strikes, having regard to the circumstances and, where there were 20 or more, their practice was usually to lay a charge.

Mr Trainor was assisted by Mr Smith during the hearing of whether the charge was proved. Both Mr Smith and the respondent alleged there were only 19 strikes. There was a dispute as to whether or not one strike was through the tail. Mr Smith emphasised there was no more than 4 consecutive strikes at any one time and that the respondent had paused on occasion and had held his stick up in the air. He added that this was the respondent’s first season and that he was endeavouring to obtain the best placing for his horse, and had indeed finished 2nd, beaten only a short neck.

Decision:
Mr Trainor draws attention to himself through his whip action. In our view it matters not whether there are 20 strikes, as Mr Renault alleges, or 19 as the respondent and Mr Smith state. Mr Trainor’s use of the whip is excessive. For the record, we count 20. We accept he has attempted to break up his action by pausing after some 4 repeated strikes and by holding the stick up, and also by varying the nature of the strikes, eg some are repetitive quick-fire back-hand strikes. Despite attempts by experienced drivers to assist him, the respondent appears not to have learnt how to run the whip through the tail of the horse as an alternative to repeated striking. Until he does, simply varying the nature of the repeated strikes will not avoid charges under this rule being found to be proved. We urge him to give this matter urgent attention.

We find the charge proved.

Penalty Submissions:
Mr Renault produced the respondent’s record, which showed 3 previous breaches this season. On each occasion Mr Trainor had been fined. Mr Renault described this record as poor and submitted a suspension of 3 to 4 days was appropriate.

Mr Trainor explained he was in the running to represent the South Island in the junior drivers championship and asked that the suspension not be too long. He accepted he needed to change his whip action. Mr Dolan, who represented the respondent at the penalty hearing, said that the respondent was simply over-enthusiastic and this had brought him foul of the rule yet again.

Penalty Decision:
On each occasion this season that the respondent has faced a charge of a breach of this rule we have been the judicial committee. So we are familiar with the circumstances of these breaches. On this occasion, as Mr Renault has accepted, the respondent is right on the cusp, but has again transgressed. We accept that he is endeavouring to change his action in an endeavour to comply with the rule. We are heartened to hear that Mr Dolan has undertaken to speak to the respondent’s employer, Mr Dalgety, as to the need to arrange continued tuition for Mr Trainor.

Mr Trainor is contrite and clearly wants to learn. Mr Dolan has said this is difficult to do when the respondent is sitting in the stand. However, we believe a suspension is inevitable in order to bring home to the respondent the seriousness of his repeated breaches of this rule.

The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of 10 drives or $500. We accept a 3 or 4 day suspension could be seen to be appropriate as Mr Trainor usually has 2 or 3 drives at a meeting, but we temper this by imposing a fine in addition to a suspension. We anticipate that this two-fold penalty will act as a deterrent but at the same time will enable the respondent to obtain the further raceday experience that he clearly needs.

Mr Trainor is suspended from the end of racing today up to and including 1 July. This is 2 South Island days and he is fined the sum of $150.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(2)(a)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: