Auckland TC 5 March 2021 – R 10 (heard 12 March 2021 at Alexandra Park) – Chair, Mr A Godsalve
ID: JCA22716
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 5 March 2021
Meet Chair:
BScott
Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones
Race Date:
2021/03/05
Race Number:
R 10
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr A Dooley – Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr B Mangos – Open Driver
Information No: A12987
Meeting: Auckland Trotting Club
Date: 5 March 2021 (heard 12 March 2021 at Alexandra Park)
Venue: Alexandra Park
Race: 10
Rule No: 869(2) – Contravention of Use of the Whip Regulations
Judicial Committee: Mr A Godsalve, Chair
Also Present: Mr S Mulcay – Senior Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
This hearing was adjourned on the day and consequently heard at the same venue on 12 March 2021.
Following the running of Race 10, an Information was submitted alleging that Open Driver, Mr B Mangos used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion on SHOW ME HEAVEN in the run home.
Mr Mangos was present at the initial hearing and endorsed the Information to the effect that he did not admit the charge. The matter was subsequently adjourned.
At the hearing on 12 March 2021 the Information was again read to Mr Mangos and he confirmed that he did not admit the breach.
The Committee requested that Mr Dooley read the Rule and associated Guidelines aloud to the hearing.
Rule 869 (2) states ‘No driver shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board’.
On 1 October 2020, the Whip and Rein Regulations provisions made by the Board came into force.
Clause 3 of those Regulations provides: (for the purposes of this hearing)
3.1. A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed in an action which does not engage the shoulder.
3.2. For the purposes of clause 3.1 ‘wrist flicking motion’ means:
3.2.1. Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip.
3.2.2. The forearm is not raised beyond forty-five degrees relative to the racing surface.
3.3.3. Not applying the whip with overt force.
3.4. For the purposes of 3.3. a driver shall be deemed to have used the whip in an unapproved manner in the following circumstances which are not exclusive:
3.4.1. If the whip is applied other than as permitted in clause 3.1.
3.4.2. If the whip is applied excessively, continuously, or without allowing the horse time to respond.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Dooley, the Informant, opened his submissions by stating that it was the Informant’s position that Mr Mangos had used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion.
Referring to the films, Mr Dooley identified the horse SHOW ME HEAVEN early in the run home when it was leading the field. He pointed out that Mr Mangos had struck the horse with more than a wrist flicking motion several times when another horse-driven by Mr Stormont- had come up alongside his horse on its inner. He stated that Mr Mangos had then corrected his action. Further up the straight, nearing the 50 metres position Mr Dooley alleged that Mr Mangos had reverted back to the ‘old style’ of whip use when driving the horse out. SHOW ME HEAVEN eventually finished in 2nd position.
Mr Mangos interjected, and asked Mr Dooley ‘are you saying that my elbow is over 45 degrees, that’s the Rule isn’t it?
Mr Dooley replied ‘you are charged with using more than a wrist flicking motion. Engaging your elbow is a breach of the Rule and you did that several times in the home straight’.
Mr Mulcay said, ‘the forearm cannot be lifted more than 45 degrees-that’s what the Guidelines state’.
Note: At this time in the hearing the quality of the video films were proving inconsistent, and help was sought from a technician. During this period, a discussion took place between the Stewards and Mr Mangos over interpretations and explanation of the Guidelines. This discussion was not necessarily germane to the context of this hearing and therefore is not recorded here.
In his submissions Mr Mangos stated that he did not consider that his arm came back over 45 degrees at all. He said that what the Stewards were alleging did not form a part of the Rules and added that he only used a wrist flicking motion and did not believe he had used his forearm. He added that he felt the Stewards ‘can’t produce a Rule’ to support their allegations.
In summing up Mr Dooley stated that the Rule was what he had read aloud at the start of the hearing and that the Official Notice was given to all Drivers in 2020. He added that the Stewards had been ‘educating’ drivers since October 2020 and that some Senior Drivers needed to adapt their whip usage. He said that that was the Policy was from HRNZ and that Stewards were obliged to apply the Policy.
Mr Dooley said that it was the Stewards position that Mr Mangos had used more than a wrist flicking motion early in the run home and then in the final part of the race. He added that in the final 4 strikes with his whip Mr Mangos had breached the Rule by using more than a wrist flicking motion and engaging his forearm ‘too much’.
Mr Mangos had nothing further to say.
DECISION DISCUSSION
The Committee took the advantage of viewing the films of this incident without other parties being present.
The films are conclusive. It is apparent that early in the run home Mr Mangos has applied his whip to SHOW ME HEAVEN several times with more than a wrist flicking motion. He has then reverted back to ‘taps’ within the Guidelines. At that point he has already breached the Guidelines-clause 3.1. and the charge against him is established and while he desisted after several strikes, the ‘damage’ was done.
Further on in the straight, from about the 150m mark to the finish he has again used a striking motion which is engaging his wrist and forearm. He has struck the horse several times, including 4-5 strikes nearing the finish which were of particular concern in that they displayed considerable force. The final strikes were, in the Committees opinion, a breach of clause 3.2.3 in that they were ‘applied with overt force, as well as a further breach of clause 3.1. and involved the use of the elbow and raised forearm’.
The Information refers to Rule 869(2), and none of the Guidelines which form part of that Rule were specifically identified in the Information.
However, in the body of the Information ‘details of the alleged breach alleged’ it refers to ‘used his whip with more than a wrist only flicking motion’.
DECISION:
The Committee finds that the charge against Mr Mangos has been established.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Dooley produced Mr Mangos’ record relative to this Rule since October 2020 when the new Guidelines were promulgated.
30 October 2020 - fined $300
31 December 2020 - suspended 3 days
31 December 2020 - suspended 6 days (a Listed race)
Mr Dooley stated that Mr Mangos has had 14,683 lifetime race drives. In the current season he has had 96 drives. He added that he considered Mr Mangos had a record of offending against this Rule which was not good.
The Stewards submitted that recent decisions involving - K Marshall (16 February 2021), C DeFilippi (14 February) and R Holmes (25 February) may have some bearing on the matter at hand.
Mr Dooley submitted that the Stewards believed the offending fell into the medium level of offending and said suspension of Mr Mangos’ Driving Licence was called for and submitted a period between 4-6 days would be appropriate.
Mr Mangos had no comment to make on his upcoming penalty.
PENALTY REASONS:
Assessment of breach.
The Guidelines which form part of Rule 869(2) have 3 levels of seriousness. The Committee believes this breach falls into the medium level breach. This level is described as (for Non-Group/Listed races), ‘for a medium-level breach the start point would either be a fine ($500) or a short period of suspension (2 days). Mid-level offending is defined as when a driver inadvertently reverts to the old style (freehand, loose reining and/or more than a flicking motion) and continues to drive in this manner for some distance (50 metres) before taking corrective steps to return to a compliant style of driving.
Record
The Committee considers Mr Mangos’ record to be very poor. In fact, the Committee felt that for a Senior Driver 4 breaches of the Rule within 4 months is deplorable and furthermore, felt that it was appropriate to describe Mr Mangos as a ‘repeat offender’ in respect of breaches of this Rule.
Assessment of Penalty
On 31 December 2020, the Judicial Committee at Auckland dealt with an admitted breach of this Rule in a Non-Group/Listed race. Faced with a previous breach on 30 October 2020 where Mr Mangos was fined $200, that Committee applied an uplift as required by the JCA Penalty Guide and suspended Mr Mangos for 3 days.
The same raceday in a later race, a Listed race, Mr Mangos was again charged with a breach of the Rule. The Guidelines state that a starting point of a 4-day suspension is required. Due to his record that Committee applied a 2-day uplift to that starting point and arrived at a 6-day suspension.
This Committee is firmly of the opinion that if the 2nd charge Mr Mangos faced on 31 December 2020 had not been a Listed race, the raceday Committee would have applied a 2-day uplift to the penalty that had been imposed on him earlier that night. That would then been a 5-day suspension.
The Committee has therefore used that as a starting point tonight. Given that this is Mr Mangos’ 4th breach, and that the offending was quite blatant and involved vigorous and overtly forceful use of the whip, the Committee considered an uplift of more than 2 days. However, on balance, and when looking at the meetings involved in a suspension, the Committee arrived at a 2-day uplift.
The decisions referred to above (Marshall, DeFilippi, Holmes) were taken into consideration in the Committees assessment of penalty in this matter.
Mr Mangos did not wish to take advantage of a deferment of suspension. The Committee is satisfied that Mr Mangos would most likely be driving at the venues included in this suspension and thus the imposed penalty will be ‘meaningful’.
DECISION:
Mr Mangos’ licence to drive is therefore suspended from after racing on 12 March 2021 until after racing on 8 April 2021, 7 days.
The meetings encompassed in this suspension are:
16 March - Palmerston North
18 March - Cambridge
23 March - Palmerston North
26 March - Auckland
30 March - Palmerston North
1 April - Palmerston North
8 April - Cambridge
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: ef53b993d393313b352ee0727e2f1176
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 05/03/2021
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Auckland TC 5 March 2021 - R 10 (heard 12 March 2021 at Alexandra Park) - Chair, Mr A Godsalve
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr A Dooley – Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr B Mangos – Open Driver
Information No: A12987
Meeting: Auckland Trotting Club
Date: 5 March 2021 (heard 12 March 2021 at Alexandra Park)
Venue: Alexandra Park
Race: 10
Rule No: 869(2) – Contravention of Use of the Whip Regulations
Judicial Committee: Mr A Godsalve, Chair
Also Present: Mr S Mulcay – Senior Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Denied
FACTS:
This hearing was adjourned on the day and consequently heard at the same venue on 12 March 2021.
Following the running of Race 10, an Information was submitted alleging that Open Driver, Mr B Mangos used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion on SHOW ME HEAVEN in the run home.
Mr Mangos was present at the initial hearing and endorsed the Information to the effect that he did not admit the charge. The matter was subsequently adjourned.
At the hearing on 12 March 2021 the Information was again read to Mr Mangos and he confirmed that he did not admit the breach.
The Committee requested that Mr Dooley read the Rule and associated Guidelines aloud to the hearing.
Rule 869 (2) states ‘No driver shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board’.
On 1 October 2020, the Whip and Rein Regulations provisions made by the Board came into force.
Clause 3 of those Regulations provides: (for the purposes of this hearing)
3.1. A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed in an action which does not engage the shoulder.
3.2. For the purposes of clause 3.1 ‘wrist flicking motion’ means:
3.2.1. Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip.
3.2.2. The forearm is not raised beyond forty-five degrees relative to the racing surface.
3.3.3. Not applying the whip with overt force.
3.4. For the purposes of 3.3. a driver shall be deemed to have used the whip in an unapproved manner in the following circumstances which are not exclusive:
3.4.1. If the whip is applied other than as permitted in clause 3.1.
3.4.2. If the whip is applied excessively, continuously, or without allowing the horse time to respond.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Dooley, the Informant, opened his submissions by stating that it was the Informant’s position that Mr Mangos had used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion.
Referring to the films, Mr Dooley identified the horse SHOW ME HEAVEN early in the run home when it was leading the field. He pointed out that Mr Mangos had struck the horse with more than a wrist flicking motion several times when another horse-driven by Mr Stormont- had come up alongside his horse on its inner. He stated that Mr Mangos had then corrected his action. Further up the straight, nearing the 50 metres position Mr Dooley alleged that Mr Mangos had reverted back to the ‘old style’ of whip use when driving the horse out. SHOW ME HEAVEN eventually finished in 2nd position.
Mr Mangos interjected, and asked Mr Dooley ‘are you saying that my elbow is over 45 degrees, that’s the Rule isn’t it?
Mr Dooley replied ‘you are charged with using more than a wrist flicking motion. Engaging your elbow is a breach of the Rule and you did that several times in the home straight’.
Mr Mulcay said, ‘the forearm cannot be lifted more than 45 degrees-that’s what the Guidelines state’.
Note: At this time in the hearing the quality of the video films were proving inconsistent, and help was sought from a technician. During this period, a discussion took place between the Stewards and Mr Mangos over interpretations and explanation of the Guidelines. This discussion was not necessarily germane to the context of this hearing and therefore is not recorded here.
In his submissions Mr Mangos stated that he did not consider that his arm came back over 45 degrees at all. He said that what the Stewards were alleging did not form a part of the Rules and added that he only used a wrist flicking motion and did not believe he had used his forearm. He added that he felt the Stewards ‘can’t produce a Rule’ to support their allegations.
In summing up Mr Dooley stated that the Rule was what he had read aloud at the start of the hearing and that the Official Notice was given to all Drivers in 2020. He added that the Stewards had been ‘educating’ drivers since October 2020 and that some Senior Drivers needed to adapt their whip usage. He said that that was the Policy was from HRNZ and that Stewards were obliged to apply the Policy.
Mr Dooley said that it was the Stewards position that Mr Mangos had used more than a wrist flicking motion early in the run home and then in the final part of the race. He added that in the final 4 strikes with his whip Mr Mangos had breached the Rule by using more than a wrist flicking motion and engaging his forearm ‘too much’.
Mr Mangos had nothing further to say.
DECISION DISCUSSION
The Committee took the advantage of viewing the films of this incident without other parties being present.
The films are conclusive. It is apparent that early in the run home Mr Mangos has applied his whip to SHOW ME HEAVEN several times with more than a wrist flicking motion. He has then reverted back to ‘taps’ within the Guidelines. At that point he has already breached the Guidelines-clause 3.1. and the charge against him is established and while he desisted after several strikes, the ‘damage’ was done.
Further on in the straight, from about the 150m mark to the finish he has again used a striking motion which is engaging his wrist and forearm. He has struck the horse several times, including 4-5 strikes nearing the finish which were of particular concern in that they displayed considerable force. The final strikes were, in the Committees opinion, a breach of clause 3.2.3 in that they were ‘applied with overt force, as well as a further breach of clause 3.1. and involved the use of the elbow and raised forearm’.
The Information refers to Rule 869(2), and none of the Guidelines which form part of that Rule were specifically identified in the Information.
However, in the body of the Information ‘details of the alleged breach alleged’ it refers to ‘used his whip with more than a wrist only flicking motion’.
DECISION:
The Committee finds that the charge against Mr Mangos has been established.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Dooley produced Mr Mangos’ record relative to this Rule since October 2020 when the new Guidelines were promulgated.
30 October 2020 - fined $300
31 December 2020 - suspended 3 days
31 December 2020 - suspended 6 days (a Listed race)
Mr Dooley stated that Mr Mangos has had 14,683 lifetime race drives. In the current season he has had 96 drives. He added that he considered Mr Mangos had a record of offending against this Rule which was not good.
The Stewards submitted that recent decisions involving - K Marshall (16 February 2021), C DeFilippi (14 February) and R Holmes (25 February) may have some bearing on the matter at hand.
Mr Dooley submitted that the Stewards believed the offending fell into the medium level of offending and said suspension of Mr Mangos’ Driving Licence was called for and submitted a period between 4-6 days would be appropriate.
Mr Mangos had no comment to make on his upcoming penalty.
PENALTY REASONS:
Assessment of breach.
The Guidelines which form part of Rule 869(2) have 3 levels of seriousness. The Committee believes this breach falls into the medium level breach. This level is described as (for Non-Group/Listed races), ‘for a medium-level breach the start point would either be a fine ($500) or a short period of suspension (2 days). Mid-level offending is defined as when a driver inadvertently reverts to the old style (freehand, loose reining and/or more than a flicking motion) and continues to drive in this manner for some distance (50 metres) before taking corrective steps to return to a compliant style of driving.
Record
The Committee considers Mr Mangos’ record to be very poor. In fact, the Committee felt that for a Senior Driver 4 breaches of the Rule within 4 months is deplorable and furthermore, felt that it was appropriate to describe Mr Mangos as a ‘repeat offender’ in respect of breaches of this Rule.
Assessment of Penalty
On 31 December 2020, the Judicial Committee at Auckland dealt with an admitted breach of this Rule in a Non-Group/Listed race. Faced with a previous breach on 30 October 2020 where Mr Mangos was fined $200, that Committee applied an uplift as required by the JCA Penalty Guide and suspended Mr Mangos for 3 days.
The same raceday in a later race, a Listed race, Mr Mangos was again charged with a breach of the Rule. The Guidelines state that a starting point of a 4-day suspension is required. Due to his record that Committee applied a 2-day uplift to that starting point and arrived at a 6-day suspension.
This Committee is firmly of the opinion that if the 2nd charge Mr Mangos faced on 31 December 2020 had not been a Listed race, the raceday Committee would have applied a 2-day uplift to the penalty that had been imposed on him earlier that night. That would then been a 5-day suspension.
The Committee has therefore used that as a starting point tonight. Given that this is Mr Mangos’ 4th breach, and that the offending was quite blatant and involved vigorous and overtly forceful use of the whip, the Committee considered an uplift of more than 2 days. However, on balance, and when looking at the meetings involved in a suspension, the Committee arrived at a 2-day uplift.
The decisions referred to above (Marshall, DeFilippi, Holmes) were taken into consideration in the Committees assessment of penalty in this matter.
Mr Mangos did not wish to take advantage of a deferment of suspension. The Committee is satisfied that Mr Mangos would most likely be driving at the venues included in this suspension and thus the imposed penalty will be ‘meaningful’.
DECISION:
Mr Mangos’ licence to drive is therefore suspended from after racing on 12 March 2021 until after racing on 8 April 2021, 7 days.
The meetings encompassed in this suspension are:
16 March - Palmerston North
18 March - Cambridge
23 March - Palmerston North
26 March - Auckland
30 March - Palmerston North
1 April - Palmerston North
8 April - Cambridge
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(2)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: a30cd9b5f36dabb89f4e26fdc8255c1e
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 10
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: bc9b88fb97496aef52c4dd59a386f323
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/03/2021
meet_title: Auckland TC - 5 March 2021
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: BScott
meet_pm1: GJones
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC