Auckland TC 11 December 2020 – R 5 – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA11299
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 11 December 2020
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2020/12/11
Race Number:
R5
Decision:
The Committee finds the charge is proved to the requisite standard. The standard being on the balance of probabilities, which simply means it is more likely than not that the actions complained of did occur.
Penalty:
Mr Williams' Open Driver’s Licence is suspended for a period commencing after the close of racing on 13 December 2020 up to and including 27 December 2020 – 7 days. In addition, Mr Williams is fined the sum of $500.
Facts:
This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 5, the Woodlands Stud Caduceus Classic Mobile Pace (Group 1). An Information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Mulcay, alleging Licensed Driver, Mr T Williams (BETTOR TWIST) used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the home straight.
Rule 869 provides that:
(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.
Part 3 of the Whip and Rein Regulations provides as follows:
3.1 A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist only flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder.
3.2 For the purposes of clause 3.1, “wrist only 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.
3.2.3 Not applying the whip with overt force.
3.3 A driver shall not use a whip in an unapproved manner.
3.4 For the purpose of clause 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 is permitted by clause 3.1.
Mr Williams did not admit the breach and he endorsed the Information accordingly.
Submissions for Decision:
Witness – Mr Mulcay
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay used available video footage to demonstrate the breach. Four camera angles were available including head, side and rear views. Mr Mulcay stated that as the field rounded the home turn BETTOR TWIST was racing on the outer and slightly behind LA ROSA who was in the lead. He said that at this point Mr Williams commenced to use his whip with a motion that engaged his elbow and raised forearm. He said that although Mr Williams held a rein in each hand, his actions were in breach of clause 3.1 of the Regulations. Mr Mulcay referred to the relevant wording on the regulations. He added that although Stewards were concerned about the number of strikes, the main concern was Mr Williams' whip action.
Under cross examination Mr Williams asked Mr Mulcay to demonstrate the particular whip actions that were of concern to Stewards. In response, using the films, Mr Mulcay stated that there were a number of instances that were of concern. Using the films to demonstrate his point, he said that passing the 200-metre mark Mr Williams' forearm was noticeably raised whilst he was engaging both his wrist and elbow. He pointed out that this same action was used at the 180-metre mark, twice at the 100m metre mark and also close to the finish line, although he said that strike was not as apparent as the others.
Respondent – Mr Williams
In his evidence Mr Williams stated that the strikes of the whip referred to by Mr Mulcay are deceiving. He said that as he has made a strike using his wrist his action has been broken up with the use of his rein’s movement. He said that it is deceiving because as his hands have come across it looks like he is using a lot of elbow, and it looks confusing with his elbow coming into play. He said he is confused as to which strikes are okay and which ones are not. He said that he is breaking it (the whip use) and it makes it look like he is using his elbow. He concluded his evidence by stating that it’s a grey area and is potentially made to look worse.
Under cross examination from Mr Mulcay there was some discussion about Mr Williams' alleged use of his whip in a side way action, slackening his reins and raising his whip.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Mulcay submitted that Mr Williams used his whip on a number of occasions with more than a wrist flicking motion. He said that if he had only done this on one or two occasions, Stewards would not have been so concerned.
Summing up -Respondent
In summing up his defence of the charge Mr Williams submitted that he has used the same technique (since the new Whip Regulations were introduced) and he has never been spoken to by Stewards or charged concerning his whip action. He further submitted that he is confused about what’s okay and what’s not.
Reasons for Decision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the race films the Committee determined that the charge was proved to the requisite standard in that Mr Williams' whip action, on occasions was in breach of r8692 and the Whip and Rein Regulations.
Part 3 of the Whip and Rein Regulations make it clear that a driver is in breach if more than a flicking motion is used whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder. And a “wrist only 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.
3.2.3 Not applying the whip with overt force.
The available films, particularly the head-on view establish that from the straight entrance to the winning post Mr Williams has used more than a flicking motion for some of his whip motions and on occasions he has applied force which we deem to have been generated by the use of his elbow and/or forearm, albeit he has maintained both hands on the reins. In support of coming to this conclusion we have taken particular note of the strikes applied at or near the 200-metre mark, at or near the 180-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 140-metre mark; at or near the 90-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 50-metre mark and at or near the 35-metre mark.
The breach itself is assessed at no more than mid-level. We are satisfied that from the 200 metre mark some of the strikes were in contravention of the rules and regulations. On this occasion Mr Mulcay has submitted that there were at least 5 strikes in breach of the rule. By our count there were at least that number with upwards of 8 questionable strikes requiring close examination.
The Committee is therefore satisfied that Mr Williams' whip action is in breach of the Rule and Regulations.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Mulcay said a mitigating factor is that Mr Williams has a clear record with no previous breaches of the whip rule within the reset period. He submitted that an aggravating factor is that the breach occurred in a Group 1 Race and the Guidelines establish a starting point of a 7-day suspension.
Mr Mulcay said that the breach was not high range. Mr Williams has made some effort to break up the manner in which he used his whip and he has endeavoured to correct his action. He placed the use in the “medium range”.
In response to a question from the Committee for his view as to Mr Williams having won the race, Mr Mulcay stated that he could not quantify any advantage gained by his whip use.
Mr Williams advised that he was not seeking a deferment to any proposed suspension. He submitted that race driving is his main source of income and a very busy time of the year is approaching. He submitted that he particularly wished to be available for the major Group Races scheduled for the race meeting on 31 December 2020. He added it is not a high-end breach and asked that his good record be taken into account.
Reasons for Penalty:
After considering submissions the Committee has assessed the breach as a “medium-level breach”, which 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”.
As this breach occurred in a Group 1 Race the starting point is a 7-day suspension. There have been no compelling reasons submitted for the Committee to consider a reduction from the starting point. The Committee has therefore adopted a 7-day suspension as our starting point.
An aggravating factor is that Mr Williams' drive, BETTOR TWIST, won the race by a nose. Rather than applying an uplift in terms of the number of suspension days, the Committee considered that a fine would be an appropriate uplift in this case. The stakemoney for the race was $95,000 with $57,00 payable to the winner. On that basis in addition to a 7-day suspension, we impose a $500 fine.
Although Mr Williams submitted that he has not been advised by Stewards of any concerns about his whip action since the introduction of new Regulations we did point out to him that the Driver Penalty Report indicates that he has been spoken to advisedly about his whip use on more than one occasion since 1 October 2020. We emphasise that we have not taken this into account in our decision making and our penalty decision is based solely on the fact that Mr Williams is a first offender.
There have only been three previous breaches of this Rule and Regulations in Group 1 Races since the new penalty regime was introduced on 1 October 2020. The penalty that we have imposed is consistent with those decisions.
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: 152cf9dad40f3cee7b1a363733fd812e
informantnumber: A12978
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Using Whip in Unapproved Manner
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 12/12/2020
hearing_title: Auckland TC 11 December 2020 – R 5 – Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
This is a defended hearing arising from the running of Race 5, the Woodlands Stud Caduceus Classic Mobile Pace (Group 1). An Information was filed by Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Mulcay, alleging Licensed Driver, Mr T Williams (BETTOR TWIST) used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the home straight.
Rule 869 provides that:
(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.
Part 3 of the Whip and Rein Regulations provides as follows:
3.1 A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist only flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder.
3.2 For the purposes of clause 3.1, “wrist only 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.
3.2.3 Not applying the whip with overt force.
3.3 A driver shall not use a whip in an unapproved manner.
3.4 For the purpose of clause 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 is permitted by clause 3.1.
Mr Williams did not admit the breach and he endorsed the Information accordingly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Witness – Mr Mulcay
Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay used available video footage to demonstrate the breach. Four camera angles were available including head, side and rear views. Mr Mulcay stated that as the field rounded the home turn BETTOR TWIST was racing on the outer and slightly behind LA ROSA who was in the lead. He said that at this point Mr Williams commenced to use his whip with a motion that engaged his elbow and raised forearm. He said that although Mr Williams held a rein in each hand, his actions were in breach of clause 3.1 of the Regulations. Mr Mulcay referred to the relevant wording on the regulations. He added that although Stewards were concerned about the number of strikes, the main concern was Mr Williams' whip action.
Under cross examination Mr Williams asked Mr Mulcay to demonstrate the particular whip actions that were of concern to Stewards. In response, using the films, Mr Mulcay stated that there were a number of instances that were of concern. Using the films to demonstrate his point, he said that passing the 200-metre mark Mr Williams' forearm was noticeably raised whilst he was engaging both his wrist and elbow. He pointed out that this same action was used at the 180-metre mark, twice at the 100m metre mark and also close to the finish line, although he said that strike was not as apparent as the others.
Respondent – Mr Williams
In his evidence Mr Williams stated that the strikes of the whip referred to by Mr Mulcay are deceiving. He said that as he has made a strike using his wrist his action has been broken up with the use of his rein’s movement. He said that it is deceiving because as his hands have come across it looks like he is using a lot of elbow, and it looks confusing with his elbow coming into play. He said he is confused as to which strikes are okay and which ones are not. He said that he is breaking it (the whip use) and it makes it look like he is using his elbow. He concluded his evidence by stating that it’s a grey area and is potentially made to look worse.
Under cross examination from Mr Mulcay there was some discussion about Mr Williams' alleged use of his whip in a side way action, slackening his reins and raising his whip.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Mulcay submitted that Mr Williams used his whip on a number of occasions with more than a wrist flicking motion. He said that if he had only done this on one or two occasions, Stewards would not have been so concerned.
Summing up -Respondent
In summing up his defence of the charge Mr Williams submitted that he has used the same technique (since the new Whip Regulations were introduced) and he has never been spoken to by Stewards or charged concerning his whip action. He further submitted that he is confused about what’s okay and what’s not.
reasonsfordecision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the race films the Committee determined that the charge was proved to the requisite standard in that Mr Williams' whip action, on occasions was in breach of r8692 and the Whip and Rein Regulations.
Part 3 of the Whip and Rein Regulations make it clear that a driver is in breach if more than a flicking motion is used whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder. And a “wrist only 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.
3.2.3 Not applying the whip with overt force.
The available films, particularly the head-on view establish that from the straight entrance to the winning post Mr Williams has used more than a flicking motion for some of his whip motions and on occasions he has applied force which we deem to have been generated by the use of his elbow and/or forearm, albeit he has maintained both hands on the reins. In support of coming to this conclusion we have taken particular note of the strikes applied at or near the 200-metre mark, at or near the 180-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 140-metre mark; at or near the 90-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 50-metre mark and at or near the 35-metre mark.
The breach itself is assessed at no more than mid-level. We are satisfied that from the 200 metre mark some of the strikes were in contravention of the rules and regulations. On this occasion Mr Mulcay has submitted that there were at least 5 strikes in breach of the rule. By our count there were at least that number with upwards of 8 questionable strikes requiring close examination.
The Committee is therefore satisfied that Mr Williams' whip action is in breach of the Rule and Regulations.
Decision:
The Committee finds the charge is proved to the requisite standard. The standard being on the balance of probabilities, which simply means it is more likely than not that the actions complained of did occur.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Mulcay said a mitigating factor is that Mr Williams has a clear record with no previous breaches of the whip rule within the reset period. He submitted that an aggravating factor is that the breach occurred in a Group 1 Race and the Guidelines establish a starting point of a 7-day suspension.
Mr Mulcay said that the breach was not high range. Mr Williams has made some effort to break up the manner in which he used his whip and he has endeavoured to correct his action. He placed the use in the “medium range”.
In response to a question from the Committee for his view as to Mr Williams having won the race, Mr Mulcay stated that he could not quantify any advantage gained by his whip use.
Mr Williams advised that he was not seeking a deferment to any proposed suspension. He submitted that race driving is his main source of income and a very busy time of the year is approaching. He submitted that he particularly wished to be available for the major Group Races scheduled for the race meeting on 31 December 2020. He added it is not a high-end breach and asked that his good record be taken into account.
reasonsforpenalty:
After considering submissions the Committee has assessed the breach as a “medium-level breach”, which 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”.
As this breach occurred in a Group 1 Race the starting point is a 7-day suspension. There have been no compelling reasons submitted for the Committee to consider a reduction from the starting point. The Committee has therefore adopted a 7-day suspension as our starting point.
An aggravating factor is that Mr Williams' drive, BETTOR TWIST, won the race by a nose. Rather than applying an uplift in terms of the number of suspension days, the Committee considered that a fine would be an appropriate uplift in this case. The stakemoney for the race was $95,000 with $57,00 payable to the winner. On that basis in addition to a 7-day suspension, we impose a $500 fine.
Although Mr Williams submitted that he has not been advised by Stewards of any concerns about his whip action since the introduction of new Regulations we did point out to him that the Driver Penalty Report indicates that he has been spoken to advisedly about his whip use on more than one occasion since 1 October 2020. We emphasise that we have not taken this into account in our decision making and our penalty decision is based solely on the fact that Mr Williams is a first offender.
There have only been three previous breaches of this Rule and Regulations in Group 1 Races since the new penalty regime was introduced on 1 October 2020. The penalty that we have imposed is consistent with those decisions.
penalty:
Mr Williams' Open Driver’s Licence is suspended for a period commencing after the close of racing on 13 December 2020 up to and including 27 December 2020 – 7 days. In addition, Mr Williams is fined the sum of $500.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2) & Whip & Rein Regulations
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr T Williams - Licensed Open Driver of BETTOR TWIST
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 21453347facf5ef3a3c2732c1b78019a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: e60bc2dd266ef062b8b909b6ccd5aab0
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 11/12/2020
meet_title: Auckland TC - 11 December 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: AGodsalve
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC