Rangiora HRC – 25 September 2008 – Race 8

hearingid: 751bdcbde4d1368b17b37e9b7b3a95b4

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 25/09/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rangiora HRC - 25 September 2008 - Race 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

This matter had been adjourned from the Rangiora Harness Racing Club’s meeting on 25 September 2008, and was heard at Addington Raceway on 3 October 2008.

This matter had been adjourned from the Rangiora Harness Racing Club’s meeting on 25 September 2008, and was heard at Addington Raceway on 3 October 2008.

Following the running of Race 8, the “Lis Mara” Standing At Nevele R Stud Handicap Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr W. E. Higgs alleging a breach of Rule 869(2)(a), excessive use of the whip.  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 W. E. Higgs used his  whip excessively on TOTALLY DIFFERENT  in the run home.”

Rule 869(2)(a), so far as it relates to the present charge, reads as

follows.

“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-                                             

                (a) use his whip in an …. excessive ….manner.”

So far as they relate to this charge the “Use of the Whip” guidelines 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 use of the whip shall be interrupted by acceptable alternative actions.

These actions include:-

i)              Running the rein(s) over the horses rump

ii)             Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump

iii)                  Running the whip through the horses tail”

Mr Higgs had indicated on the information that he did not admit this breach of the rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Mrs Williams gave evidence that Mr Higgs was seen to use his whip in an excessive manner in the run home.  Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre used video coverage of the incident to show that Mr Higgs had shaken the reins at his horse on about 7 occasions, in quick succession, when entering the straight.  At that time Mr Higgs was holding his whip in his right hand, and the allegation was that he had hit his horse with the whip at the same time as he shook the reins.  

A short time later Mr Higgs hit his horse on about another 15 occasions in the last 150 metres of the race.  Mrs Williams said that it was a combination of the two occasions which she believed made the use of the whip excessive, but she also accepted that use of the whip in the last 150 metres was within the “guidelines”. 

Mr Higgs denied that his use of the whip was excessive.  He said that on entering the straight he shook his reins at his horse while holding his whip in his right hand.  He used video coverage to support his evidence, and strenuously denied that his whip had made contact with his horse, harness or sulky.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. The basis of this charge was the alleged use of the whip by Mr Higgs on TOTALLY DIFFERENT when entering the straight.  Video coverage of the incident, taken from different angles, was viewed by us on numerous occasions.  It was obvious to us that when Mr Higgs was shaking the reins his whip was also moving towards his horse.  What was not clear was whether or not the whip actually made contact with the horse, harness or sulky.  It was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that it did, and Mr Higgs’ case that it did not.

After reviewing the evidence on this aspect we were not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mr Higgs had used his whip on TOTALLY DIFFERENT during the rein shaking.  We determined that Mr Higgs should be given the benefit of the doubt on this point.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be prepared later and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Higgs used his whip in two distinct phases after entering the straight.  On the first occasion Mr Higgs vigorously shook the reins at his horse while holding a rein in each hand, and his whip in his right hand. On the second occasion Mr Higgs used his whip, from about the 150 metre mark, on about 15 occasions.  Mrs Williams accepted that the use of the whip on this occasion was within the “guidelines”.

Mrs Williams said that the use of the whip on the two occasions combined was in breach of the “guidelines” because of the total number of times the whip was used.

Mr Higgs said that on the first occasion he had shaken the reins but did not use his whip.  He illustrated the action he used, and was adamant his whip did not touch his horse, harness or sulky.  Mr Higgs also showed where he paused for a short time while he took the reins in his left hand and his whip in his right hand.  The second phase then followed.

The video coverage was viewed by us on numerous occasions.  The first phase was looked at closely.  Although it appeared that Mr Higgs had struck his horse with his whip on this occasion, it was not all that clear, and Mr Higgs is given the benefit of the doubt on this point.

The “guidelines” provide that a whip must strike the horse, harness or sulky before the “guidelines” apply.  In this case therefore we find that there is insufficient evidence to show that the first phase amounted to “use” of the whip.

We also mention that had the first phase amounted to “use” of the whip, it would not necessarily have breached the Rule.  There was a reasonable gap between the first and second phases, and we do not believe that it is reasonable to add two distinct legitimate phases together to make the use of the whip an offence.

Accordingly we dismiss the charge.”

J. M. Phelan

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 418571620ff69a67df62f0206b8fb1b1

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: d9c00a57b4144e75b26131625342fa12

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 25/09/2008

meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 25 September 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: rangiora-hrc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: Rangiora HRC