Auckland TC 11 December 2020 – R 5 – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA14168
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 11 December 2020
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
AGodsalve
Race Date:
2020/12/11
Race Number:
R 5
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 than the actions complained of did occur.
Penalty:
Ms Ottley's 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.
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, Ms S Ottley (LA ROSA) used her 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.
Ms Ottley did not admit the breach and she 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 identified LA ROSA (S OTTLEY) racing in the lead for most of the run up the home straight. LA ROSA finished in second place a nose behind the winner BETTOR TWIST. He stated that the manner of Ms Ottley's whip use (due to more than wrist flicking), on a number of occasions were in breach of clause 3.1 of the Regulations.
Mr Mulcay pointed out, using the race films, that it was apparent Ms Ottley at the 150-metre mark is using her whip in a sideways motion. He then pointed to other instances where he believed the manner of her whip use to be in contravention of the Guidelines, in particular more than wrist only flicking.
Ms Ottley had no questions of Mr Mulcay in cross examination.
Respondent – Ms Ottley
In her evidence Mr Ottley stated that the way she sits and holds the reins is more upright than other drivers. She said that no one has ever advised her that her use of whip style is a problem. She said that she was mindful of the requirements of the Regulations and most of her action was mostly only running her reins over her drive's rear. She added that she holds her reins a lot higher than other drivers.
Under cross examination Mr Mulcay took issue with Ms Ottley’s claim that she has never been advised her whip action was a problem. Using the Driver Penalty Sheet Mr Mulcay pointed out that Ms Ottley has been spoken to advisedly about her whip action on 7 occasions since the new Guidelines were introduced on 1 October 2020. He added 5 of those occasions specifically related to using a whip with more than a wrist flicking motion. Of the 7 one was an official warning and the other were noted as ‘spoken to advisedly’.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Mulcay submitted that Ms Ottley’s whip use is in breach of the Regulations, which has resulted in the charge. He submitted that had she breached the Regulations one or two times she may not have been charged.
Summing up -Respondent
In summing up her defence of the charge Ms Ottley submitted that it was a Group 1 Race and she thought she drove a great race.
Reasons for Decision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the race films the Committee determined that the charge was proved to the requisite standard. Ms Ottley’s whip action was, in the view of the Committee, in breach of r 8692 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, establish that from the straight entrance to the winning post Ms Ottley has used more than a flicking motion and on occasions she has applied force which we deem to have been generated by the use of her elbow and/or forearm. In support of coming to this conclusion we have taken particular note of the strikes applied at or near the 190-metre mark, between the 160 and 140-metre marks (3 strikes) with 1 being at least above should height; at or near the 130-metre mark; at or near the 100-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 90-metre mark and at or near the 60-metre mark. The strike near the 160 mark provides the most compelling evidence as the force is appears to have been generated with the engagement of the shoulder. Ms Ottley has maintained both hands on the reins.
We assess the breach to be no more than a mid-level breach (as defined by the Whip Use Guide).
We are satisfied, that some of the strikes were in contravention of the Rules and Regulations. On this occasion Mr Mulcay has submitted that there were a number of strikes that constitute a breach. We estimate that there were at least of 8 or 9 questionable strikes, and we are more than satisfied at least 1 or more of those strikes are clearly in breach of the Regulations.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Mulcay said a mitigating factor is that Ms Ottley 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 in the “medium range” and Ms Ottley has made some effort to break up her whip action.
Ms Ottley submitted that she drives at all available meetings and did not seek a deferment to any proposed suspension. She submitted that it was a medium range breach and hoped that she would receive a reduction from the 7-day starting point.
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 are no compelling reasons for the Committee to consider a reduction from that starting point. Therefore, the Committee has adopted a 7-day suspension as our starting point. This conforms with the Penalty Guide.
Ms Ottley’s drive finished in second place. The Committee considered whether on that basis a penalty uplift should be applied. In our consideration we were conscious that the race winner was also in breach of the rule and the driver received a $500 (fine) uplift in addition to his suspension. The stakemoney to the winner was $57000, whereas the second place stakemoney was $14250. For consistency we also noted that in a recent Group 1 Race the driver of the second placed horse was suspended, but no fine imposed. Taking all matters into account we decided, on this occasion, not to impose a fine in addition to a 7-day suspension.
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: a23f3e8ec39b339a3d10372b3819c080
informantnumber: A12977
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, Ms S Ottley (LA ROSA) used her 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.
Ms Ottley did not admit the breach and she 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 identified LA ROSA (S OTTLEY) racing in the lead for most of the run up the home straight. LA ROSA finished in second place a nose behind the winner BETTOR TWIST. He stated that the manner of Ms Ottley's whip use (due to more than wrist flicking), on a number of occasions were in breach of clause 3.1 of the Regulations.
Mr Mulcay pointed out, using the race films, that it was apparent Ms Ottley at the 150-metre mark is using her whip in a sideways motion. He then pointed to other instances where he believed the manner of her whip use to be in contravention of the Guidelines, in particular more than wrist only flicking.
Ms Ottley had no questions of Mr Mulcay in cross examination.
Respondent – Ms Ottley
In her evidence Mr Ottley stated that the way she sits and holds the reins is more upright than other drivers. She said that no one has ever advised her that her use of whip style is a problem. She said that she was mindful of the requirements of the Regulations and most of her action was mostly only running her reins over her drive's rear. She added that she holds her reins a lot higher than other drivers.
Under cross examination Mr Mulcay took issue with Ms Ottley’s claim that she has never been advised her whip action was a problem. Using the Driver Penalty Sheet Mr Mulcay pointed out that Ms Ottley has been spoken to advisedly about her whip action on 7 occasions since the new Guidelines were introduced on 1 October 2020. He added 5 of those occasions specifically related to using a whip with more than a wrist flicking motion. Of the 7 one was an official warning and the other were noted as ‘spoken to advisedly’.
Summing up – Informant
In summing up the case for the Informant Mr Mulcay submitted that Ms Ottley’s whip use is in breach of the Regulations, which has resulted in the charge. He submitted that had she breached the Regulations one or two times she may not have been charged.
Summing up -Respondent
In summing up her defence of the charge Ms Ottley submitted that it was a Group 1 Race and she thought she drove a great race.
reasonsfordecision:
After considering the evidence and reviewing the race films the Committee determined that the charge was proved to the requisite standard. Ms Ottley’s whip action was, in the view of the Committee, in breach of r 8692 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, establish that from the straight entrance to the winning post Ms Ottley has used more than a flicking motion and on occasions she has applied force which we deem to have been generated by the use of her elbow and/or forearm. In support of coming to this conclusion we have taken particular note of the strikes applied at or near the 190-metre mark, between the 160 and 140-metre marks (3 strikes) with 1 being at least above should height; at or near the 130-metre mark; at or near the 100-metre mark (2 strikes); at or near the 90-metre mark and at or near the 60-metre mark. The strike near the 160 mark provides the most compelling evidence as the force is appears to have been generated with the engagement of the shoulder. Ms Ottley has maintained both hands on the reins.
We assess the breach to be no more than a mid-level breach (as defined by the Whip Use Guide).
We are satisfied, that some of the strikes were in contravention of the Rules and Regulations. On this occasion Mr Mulcay has submitted that there were a number of strikes that constitute a breach. We estimate that there were at least of 8 or 9 questionable strikes, and we are more than satisfied at least 1 or more of those strikes are clearly in breach of the 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 than the actions complained of did occur.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Mulcay said a mitigating factor is that Ms Ottley 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 in the “medium range” and Ms Ottley has made some effort to break up her whip action.
Ms Ottley submitted that she drives at all available meetings and did not seek a deferment to any proposed suspension. She submitted that it was a medium range breach and hoped that she would receive a reduction from the 7-day starting point.
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 are no compelling reasons for the Committee to consider a reduction from that starting point. Therefore, the Committee has adopted a 7-day suspension as our starting point. This conforms with the Penalty Guide.
Ms Ottley’s drive finished in second place. The Committee considered whether on that basis a penalty uplift should be applied. In our consideration we were conscious that the race winner was also in breach of the rule and the driver received a $500 (fine) uplift in addition to his suspension. The stakemoney to the winner was $57000, whereas the second place stakemoney was $14250. For consistency we also noted that in a recent Group 1 Race the driver of the second placed horse was suspended, but no fine imposed. Taking all matters into account we decided, on this occasion, not to impose a fine in addition to a 7-day suspension.
penalty:
Ms Ottley's 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.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2) & Whip & Rein Regulations
Informant: Mr S Mulcay - Senior Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms S Ottley - Licensed Open Driver of LA ROSA
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 150178f5ae76a86a2db9919fc0e1bd6a
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
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