Geraldine TC 26 November 2011 – R 10 (heard at Addington on 2 Dcember 2011)
ID: JCA22542
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Geraldine TC - 26 November 2011
Meet Chair:
JMillar
Meet Committee Member 1:
JPhelan
Race Date:
2011/11/26
Race Number:
R10
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
Information No: A1034
Meeting: Geraldine Trotting Club
Date: 26 November 2011 (heard at Addignton on 2 December 2011)
Venue: Orari Racecourse, Orari
Rule No: 869 (2) (a)
Race: 10
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 10, Geraldine ITM/Goldenedge Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) in that, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the race, he “used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 400 metres”.
The information was filed with the Judicial Committee on raceday, was served on Mr Clark at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway, Christchurch, on 2 December 2011, and was heard at that meeting.
Mr Clark was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Ydgren, representing Mr McIntyre in his absence, said that the Stewards were alleging that, from the 400 metres, Mr Clark had used his whip on approximately 23 occasions which, in their view, was excessive.
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 400 metres of the race. He pointed out THE FIERY GINGA, driven by Mr Clark, racing in the one-one approaching the home turn. At that point, Mr Clark commenced using his whip and angled wider on the track, continuing to use the whip. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Clark had thereafter used his whip in a continuous manner with no discernible pauses, except for one brief period when he had to ease his horse around the galloping BEAT THE MONARCH. His use of the whip had gone on for too far prior to that pause.
Mr Clark had prepared a submission which he read to the hearing. He said that the Rule was “inherently wrong”. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the horse nor does it achieve the aim of each horse performing to its maximum ability. The Stewards treat the Rule in isolation and use Guidelines in which they consider anything over 16 times with the whip to be excessive. The JCA needs to consider it a minor part of the aims of harness racing, he submitted.
The Rule contradicts other Rules which have greater priority, he submitted, and he referred to Rule 868 (2) which requires a driver to take “all reasonable and permissible measures”. That Rule goes to the core of harness racing. The use of the word “excessive” makes the Rule a subjective one and should not be confined to the Guidelines in charging drivers for using the whip in excess of 16 times. The Guidelines are for the convenience of the Stewards and should not be slavishly adhered to by Judicial Committees for expediency. Every case is different and should be looked at in the light of the particular circumstances.
He then made the following specific points with reference to the present charge:
1. The straight at Orari is 350 metres long. Therefore, a driver is driving his horse out over a longer distance than on other tracks;
2. THE FIERY GINGA is a very relaxed horse;
3. While the horse responds to other forms of encouragement, he responds best and lifts his effort under use of the whip;
4. The horse responded at the top of the straight when Mr Clark began using the whip. He stopped using it when he cleared and went round BEAT THE MONARCH. As a result, the horse lost focus and momentum. Over the last 100 metres, he had driven the horse out with the whip, as required by Rule 868 (3), and he “surged forward” into 3rd place;
5. The official margin between 3rd and 4th was a head;
6. If he had counted the strokes and stopped after 14, the horse would have “battled away under urging” and finished 5th, 6th or 7th;
7. The Guidelines refer to “discernible pause”. He submitted the video clearly showed such a pause when he cleared the breaking horse;
8. This is a case where the necessity to comply with Rule 868 (2) must be given greater weight than Rule 869 (2) (a);
9. A Judicial Committee should take into account that a driver knows how a horse is responding better than a Stipendiary Steward sitting on the sideline, and give drivers credit who continue to use the whip when the horse is still responding and refrain from doing so when it ceases to respond; and
10. It is imperative to show investors that all drivers are trying their hardest to win, not just putting “a feel good show” for a vocal minority.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Committee has carefully viewed the video replays in this case and we have listened to the submissions by both parties. In particular, Mr Clark made a very detailed submission in which he was critical of the Rule and the Guidelines and the way in which they are enforced by the Stipendiary Stewards.
Mr Ydgren alleged that Mr Clark had used his whip 23 times in the final 400 metres of the race and this was borne out by the video replays. It was significant, in the Committee’s view, that Mr Clark did not dispute that allegation. It is not necessary to deal, on an individual basis, with all of the submissions made by Mr Clark. The simple fact of the matter is that the Rule and the Guidelines relating to use of the whip are known to all horsemen and all horsemen, without exception, are required to drive within the Rule and the Guidelines.
In this case, we are clearly satisfied that Mr Clark did not. To use the whip on 23 occasions, which was not disputed, and in the case of most of the strikes in a forceful manner and continuously over a distance of 400 metres is excessive. The only “discernible pause”, and Mr Clark himself pointed this out, was it appeared of necessity when Mr Clark had to take a hold of his horse to avoid the breaking horse in front of him.
Finally, and this was addressed to Mr Clark, if Mr Clark has issues with the merits of the Rule and/or Guidelines, he should take those issues up with the appropriate authorities and through the proper channels. A defended hearing before a Judicial Committee is not the appropriate forum in which to advocate a change to the Rule. We, as the Judicial Committee, are charged with applying the Rules as they exist and, with due respect to Mr Clark, not as he thinks they should be.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide which recommends a starting point for a breach of the Rule of a fine of $300 or a suspension for 6 drives. He said that Mr Clark had been fined $200 for a breach of the Rule on 31 January 2011. He submitted that a fine of $250 was appropriate in this case.
Mr Clark did not wish to say anything in relation to penalty.
PENALTY REASONS:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Mr Clark’s record. The previous breach was some 10 months ago. The usual fine for a breach of the Rule where the driver has a clear record and admits the breach is $200. Mr Clark cannot be given a discount for admitting the breach but we have regarded his record as being clear for penalty purposes.
PENALTY:
Mr Clark was fined the sum of $250.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
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: f28ab66c172615da35fcc91f67f0a66e
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 26/11/2011
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Geraldine TC 26 November 2011 - R 10 (heard at Addington on 2 Dcember 2011)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: A L Clark, Licensed Open Driver
Information No: A1034
Meeting: Geraldine Trotting Club
Date: 26 November 2011 (heard at Addignton on 2 December 2011)
Venue: Orari Racecourse, Orari
Rule No: 869 (2) (a)
Race: 10
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
Following the running of Race 10, Geraldine ITM/Goldenedge Handicap Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr N G McIntyre, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr A L Clark, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) in that, as the driver of THE FIERY GINGA in the race, he “used his whip in an excessive manner over the final 400 metres”.
The information was filed with the Judicial Committee on raceday, was served on Mr Clark at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway, Christchurch, on 2 December 2011, and was heard at that meeting.
Mr Clark was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Ydgren, representing Mr McIntyre in his absence, said that the Stewards were alleging that, from the 400 metres, Mr Clark had used his whip on approximately 23 occasions which, in their view, was excessive.
Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward, showed video replays of the final 400 metres of the race. He pointed out THE FIERY GINGA, driven by Mr Clark, racing in the one-one approaching the home turn. At that point, Mr Clark commenced using his whip and angled wider on the track, continuing to use the whip. Mr Renault alleged that Mr Clark had thereafter used his whip in a continuous manner with no discernible pauses, except for one brief period when he had to ease his horse around the galloping BEAT THE MONARCH. His use of the whip had gone on for too far prior to that pause.
Mr Clark had prepared a submission which he read to the hearing. He said that the Rule was “inherently wrong”. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the horse nor does it achieve the aim of each horse performing to its maximum ability. The Stewards treat the Rule in isolation and use Guidelines in which they consider anything over 16 times with the whip to be excessive. The JCA needs to consider it a minor part of the aims of harness racing, he submitted.
The Rule contradicts other Rules which have greater priority, he submitted, and he referred to Rule 868 (2) which requires a driver to take “all reasonable and permissible measures”. That Rule goes to the core of harness racing. The use of the word “excessive” makes the Rule a subjective one and should not be confined to the Guidelines in charging drivers for using the whip in excess of 16 times. The Guidelines are for the convenience of the Stewards and should not be slavishly adhered to by Judicial Committees for expediency. Every case is different and should be looked at in the light of the particular circumstances.
He then made the following specific points with reference to the present charge:
1. The straight at Orari is 350 metres long. Therefore, a driver is driving his horse out over a longer distance than on other tracks;
2. THE FIERY GINGA is a very relaxed horse;
3. While the horse responds to other forms of encouragement, he responds best and lifts his effort under use of the whip;
4. The horse responded at the top of the straight when Mr Clark began using the whip. He stopped using it when he cleared and went round BEAT THE MONARCH. As a result, the horse lost focus and momentum. Over the last 100 metres, he had driven the horse out with the whip, as required by Rule 868 (3), and he “surged forward” into 3rd place;
5. The official margin between 3rd and 4th was a head;
6. If he had counted the strokes and stopped after 14, the horse would have “battled away under urging” and finished 5th, 6th or 7th;
7. The Guidelines refer to “discernible pause”. He submitted the video clearly showed such a pause when he cleared the breaking horse;
8. This is a case where the necessity to comply with Rule 868 (2) must be given greater weight than Rule 869 (2) (a);
9. A Judicial Committee should take into account that a driver knows how a horse is responding better than a Stipendiary Steward sitting on the sideline, and give drivers credit who continue to use the whip when the horse is still responding and refrain from doing so when it ceases to respond; and
10. It is imperative to show investors that all drivers are trying their hardest to win, not just putting “a feel good show” for a vocal minority.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Committee has carefully viewed the video replays in this case and we have listened to the submissions by both parties. In particular, Mr Clark made a very detailed submission in which he was critical of the Rule and the Guidelines and the way in which they are enforced by the Stipendiary Stewards.
Mr Ydgren alleged that Mr Clark had used his whip 23 times in the final 400 metres of the race and this was borne out by the video replays. It was significant, in the Committee’s view, that Mr Clark did not dispute that allegation. It is not necessary to deal, on an individual basis, with all of the submissions made by Mr Clark. The simple fact of the matter is that the Rule and the Guidelines relating to use of the whip are known to all horsemen and all horsemen, without exception, are required to drive within the Rule and the Guidelines.
In this case, we are clearly satisfied that Mr Clark did not. To use the whip on 23 occasions, which was not disputed, and in the case of most of the strikes in a forceful manner and continuously over a distance of 400 metres is excessive. The only “discernible pause”, and Mr Clark himself pointed this out, was it appeared of necessity when Mr Clark had to take a hold of his horse to avoid the breaking horse in front of him.
Finally, and this was addressed to Mr Clark, if Mr Clark has issues with the merits of the Rule and/or Guidelines, he should take those issues up with the appropriate authorities and through the proper channels. A defended hearing before a Judicial Committee is not the appropriate forum in which to advocate a change to the Rule. We, as the Judicial Committee, are charged with applying the Rules as they exist and, with due respect to Mr Clark, not as he thinks they should be.
DECISION:
The charge was found proved.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Ydgren referred to the Penalty Guide which recommends a starting point for a breach of the Rule of a fine of $300 or a suspension for 6 drives. He said that Mr Clark had been fined $200 for a breach of the Rule on 31 January 2011. He submitted that a fine of $250 was appropriate in this case.
Mr Clark did not wish to say anything in relation to penalty.
PENALTY REASONS:
In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Mr Clark’s record. The previous breach was some 10 months ago. The usual fine for a breach of the Rule where the driver has a clear record and admits the breach is $200. Mr Clark cannot be given a discount for admitting the breach but we have regarded his record as being clear for penalty purposes.
PENALTY:
Mr Clark was fined the sum of $250.
R G McKenzie S C Ching
CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(2)(a)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 68aefb814b9d18a7b07241ec36ad8ca8
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 4e95bda774d2942f96ebe564e6fa0258
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/11/2011
meet_title: Geraldine TC - 26 November 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: geraldine-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JMillar
meet_pm1: JPhelan
meet_pm2: none
name: Geraldine TC