Cheviot HRC – 7 March 2010 – Race 8
ID: JCA20741
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Cheviot HRC - 7 March 2010
Race Date:
2010/03/07
Race Number:
Race 8
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No. 68723
--Meeting Cheviot Harness Racing Club
--Date 7 March 2010
--Venue Addington Raceway
--Race 8 Nevele R Stakes
--Rule 869(2)(a)
--Judicial Chairman J. M Phelan, Committee J. Millar
--Plea Not admitted
--Appearing Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams
Defendant: Mr J. T. Keast – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 8, the Nevele R Stakes, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr J. T. Keast, the driver of “Paradise City” (3), alleging that he had used his whip excessively in breach of Rule 869(2)(a).
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No. 68723
--Meeting Cheviot Harness Racing Club
--Date 7 March 2010
--Venue Addington Raceway
--Race 8 Nevele R Stakes
--Rule 869(2)(a)
--Judicial Chairman J. M Phelan, Committee J. Millar
--Plea Not admitted
--Appearing Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams
Defendant: Mr J. T. Keast – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 8, the Nevele R Stakes, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr J. T. Keast, the driver of “Paradise City” (3), alleging that he had used his whip excessively in 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 Keast used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 600m.”
--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 Keast had indicated on the information that he did not admit the
breach of this rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Keast also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mrs Williams gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Keast was in the trail, and that from about the 600 metre mark he had used his whip sparingly, until reaching the 400 metre mark. From that point until about the 100 metre mark had used his whip forcefully on 13 occasions, with distinct pauses between each blow. In the last 100 metres Mr Keast had used his whip forcefully on six occasions in quick succession.
--Mrs Williams also referred us to the “Use of Whip” guidelines. Mr Keast said that he was familiar with these guidelines and, so far as they are relevant, they provide 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.
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”
Mrs Williams said that it was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr Keast had simply used his whip “too much” and that the number of times (19) and the force of its use (all forceful blows) needed to be considered.
Mr Keast gave evidence and he did not dispute that he had used the whip on “Paradise City” as described by Mrs Williams. He said that he was doing his best to obtain the best possible finishing place, and that his horse did respond and make ground to finish in second place. Mr Keast also said that there is a Rule [Rule 869(3)] that requires him to drive his horse out to the finish. Mr Keast did not dispute that all 19 strikes with the whip were forceful.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that Mr Keast’s use of the whip, looked at overall, was excessive. In particular we were satisfied that each of the 19 strikes with the whip was forceful, and the number of times it was used was too much.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be issued later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that firstly you used your whip forcibly on each of the 19 occasions from the 400 metre mark that we have been talking about, and we have discounted anything that may have happened before that because we think that was pretty innocuous, and you were just keeping your horse up in the trail.
--Secondly, on the 13 occasions from about the 400 metre to the 100 metre mark you again used your whip forcefully, although there were gaps between them. Then the last 6 times you used your whip, again forcefully, were in the last 100 metres, and in quick succession, and there were no distinct pauses as set out in the guidelines. It is also a factor that the horse was a two-year-old, and we take that into account.
--We have decided that the number of times and the force with which the whip was used was too much, again in accordance with the guidelines, and we find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mrs Williams advised that Mr Keast had a previous conviction back in May 2009, but didn’t intend to take this into account because of the time lapse. Mrs Williams said that the Penalty Guidelines recommended a starting point of a $250-00 fine, and in this case she recommended a fine of between $250-00 and $300-00.
--We adjourned to consider the matter of an appropriate penalty and decided that in this case Mr Keast would be fined the sum of $250-00. On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our decision.
--
J. M. Phelan J. Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68723
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: 87cc96529bd6b52473b9bad760362dd2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 07/03/2010
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Cheviot HRC - 7 March 2010 - Race 8
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No. 68723
--Meeting Cheviot Harness Racing Club
--Date 7 March 2010
--Venue Addington Raceway
--Race 8 Nevele R Stakes
--Rule 869(2)(a)
--Judicial Chairman J. M Phelan, Committee J. Millar
--Plea Not admitted
--Appearing Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams
Defendant: Mr J. T. Keast – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 8, the Nevele R Stakes, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr J. T. Keast, the driver of “Paradise City” (3), alleging that he had used his whip excessively in breach of Rule 869(2)(a).
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
--Information No. 68723
--Meeting Cheviot Harness Racing Club
--Date 7 March 2010
--Venue Addington Raceway
--Race 8 Nevele R Stakes
--Rule 869(2)(a)
--Judicial Chairman J. M Phelan, Committee J. Millar
--Plea Not admitted
--Appearing Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams
Defendant: Mr J. T. Keast – Open Horseman
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 8, the Nevele R Stakes, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr J. T. Keast, the driver of “Paradise City” (3), alleging that he had used his whip excessively in 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 Keast used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 600m.”
--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 Keast had indicated on the information that he did not admit the
breach of this rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Keast also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
Mrs Williams gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Keast was in the trail, and that from about the 600 metre mark he had used his whip sparingly, until reaching the 400 metre mark. From that point until about the 100 metre mark had used his whip forcefully on 13 occasions, with distinct pauses between each blow. In the last 100 metres Mr Keast had used his whip forcefully on six occasions in quick succession.
--Mrs Williams also referred us to the “Use of Whip” guidelines. Mr Keast said that he was familiar with these guidelines and, so far as they are relevant, they provide 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.
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”
Mrs Williams said that it was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr Keast had simply used his whip “too much” and that the number of times (19) and the force of its use (all forceful blows) needed to be considered.
Mr Keast gave evidence and he did not dispute that he had used the whip on “Paradise City” as described by Mrs Williams. He said that he was doing his best to obtain the best possible finishing place, and that his horse did respond and make ground to finish in second place. Mr Keast also said that there is a Rule [Rule 869(3)] that requires him to drive his horse out to the finish. Mr Keast did not dispute that all 19 strikes with the whip were forceful.
--After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.
--We were satisfied that Mr Keast’s use of the whip, looked at overall, was excessive. In particular we were satisfied that each of the 19 strikes with the whip was forceful, and the number of times it was used was too much.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be issued later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that firstly you used your whip forcibly on each of the 19 occasions from the 400 metre mark that we have been talking about, and we have discounted anything that may have happened before that because we think that was pretty innocuous, and you were just keeping your horse up in the trail.
--Secondly, on the 13 occasions from about the 400 metre to the 100 metre mark you again used your whip forcefully, although there were gaps between them. Then the last 6 times you used your whip, again forcefully, were in the last 100 metres, and in quick succession, and there were no distinct pauses as set out in the guidelines. It is also a factor that the horse was a two-year-old, and we take that into account.
--We have decided that the number of times and the force with which the whip was used was too much, again in accordance with the guidelines, and we find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mrs Williams advised that Mr Keast had a previous conviction back in May 2009, but didn’t intend to take this into account because of the time lapse. Mrs Williams said that the Penalty Guidelines recommended a starting point of a $250-00 fine, and in this case she recommended a fine of between $250-00 and $300-00.
--We adjourned to consider the matter of an appropriate penalty and decided that in this case Mr Keast would be fined the sum of $250-00. On resuming the hearing we advised the parties of our decision.
--
J. M. Phelan J. Millar
CHAIR Committee Member
68723
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2, 869.3
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 02b0e1e9a04147b9c36142f1f79ac7a1
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a116440c867a155924351e9a42f03aeb
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 07/03/2010
meet_title: Cheviot HRC - 7 March 2010
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: cheviot-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Cheviot HRC