Ashburton TC 3 June 2018 – R 6 – Chair, Mr G Clapp

hearingid: 104b96dcaf037b1e5ea97082ab0e7a24

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 03/06/2018

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Ashburton TC 3 June 2018 - R 6 - Chair, Mr G Clapp

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: S P Renault – Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: T S Chmiel – Open Horseman

Information No: A09644

Meeting: Ashburton Trotting Club

Date: 3 June 2018

Venue: Ashburton Raceway

Race: 6

Rule No: 869 (2) – Whip Regulation (b)

Judicial Committee: G J Clapp, Chairman – S C Ching, Panellist.

Charge: Excessive use of the whip

Plea: Not Admitted

Evidence:

Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, alleged that Mr Chmiel had used his whip on more occasions than permitted in clause (b) of the Use of the Whip Regulations on his drive LAYTONS LASS in race 6, the MARK AND LYNDA CONNORS FAREWELL TO THE RECREATION HOTEL GREYMOUTH MOBILE PACE.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.

The Use of the Whip Regulations provide:

(b) No horseman is permitted to use their whip in a striking motion on more than ten occasions inside the final 400 metres. This is inclusive of “backhanders” and the use applies to the horse, harness and/or sulky.

Mr Chmiel had initially indicated on the information that he admitted the breach. However, at the hearing he sought leave to change his plea to not admitted which was granted by the Committee.

Submissions for Decision:

Mr Renault had Mr Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrate Mr Chmiel's alleged breach on the videos. At the 400-metre mark Mr Chmiel was in the parked position. As the field entered the home straight, he gave the horse, what Mr Renault deemed, a couple of flicks which the Stewards did not count. Mr Renault then pointed out and counted on the films, 13 strikes over the concluding stages.

Mr Chmiel said that he believed that he had not gone over the permissible amount of 10 strikes. He said that the last few alleged strikes were in fact, rubs over the rump of the horse with the whip. He did not believe they were strikes. Mr Chmiel then asked for the actual rule to be read to him. Mr Renault told him the guideline “No horseman is permitted to use their whip in a striking motion on more than 10 occasions”.

Mr Renault said the Stewards believed that as he was going down it was still a striking motion. He added although Mr Chmiel still had the reins in his hand he was going down in a striking motion.

Mr Chmiel added that you can take the rules either way but felt that he did not punish the horse. He was trying to get the best out of the horse to run in the money. He said if he had stopped driving it that it would have pulled up.

Reason For Decision:

Mr Chmiel has been charged with using his whip outside the guidelines of the whip Regulations.

He had initially signed the information admitting the breach of this rule. When asked to confirm this he was unable to give the committee a positive plea. We then registered a not admitted plea.

We carefully considered the evidence and films available of the alleged strikes. The films were clear and we were satisfied that Mr Chmiel had used his whip in a striking motion over the final 400m on 15 occasions in breach of the Rule and Guidelines.

We therefore found the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Renault told the Committee that Mr Chmiel had a clear record under the provisions of this rule. He has had 243 drives this season and 210 last season.

The prescribed penalty in the Use of the Whip Regulations for 14 – 17 strikes is a fine of $300, stated Mr Renault, and he submitted that was an appropriate penalty.

Mr Chmiel asked for a suspension as he did not want to pay a fine.

Reasons for Penalty:

The prescribed penalty under the Use of the Whip Regulation in the case of 14 -17 strikes is a fine of $300, mitigation inclusive. This Committee, despite Mr Chmiel’s submission for a suspension, determined that a fine, as per the sliding scale, was an appropriate penalty in this case. The Committee found there were no aggravating factors to consider; therefore, no uplift in penalty was warranted. We determined that a fine of $300 as prescribed in the Penalty Guide sliding scale was an appropriate penalty.

Penalty:

Mr Chmiel is fined the sum of $300.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(2) - Whip Regulation (b)

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: