Auckland TC – 5 June 2009 –

hearingid: 9766aac19577f91f8775520dae94981c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/06/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland TC - 5 June 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

An information field by Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Muirhead against Mr A Herlihy, driver of MAGNUM OPUS, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2)(a) – excessive use of the whip – in that he used his whip excessively over the concluding stages of the race. 

An information field by Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Muirhead against Mr A Herlihy, driver of MAGNUM OPUS, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2)(a) – excessive use of the whip – in that he used his whip excessively over the concluding stages of the race.  Mr Herlihy denied the breach and was present at the hearing.

Mr Muirhead showed the video films of the last 200 metres of the race.  He said Mr Herlihy used his whip on 28 occasions, and most of the use was continuous.  Mr Herlihy did not contest that evidence.  He said he had pleaded not guilty because he felt there should be some discretion in the interpretation of the guidelines issued on 1 August 2006.  He said his horse was hot favourite and started hanging out about 600 metres from the finish and that is why he did not use the passing lane.  He said he slapped the horse with the whip to keep it straight and to keep it going.  The film showed nearly all the use of the whip consisted of backhand taps on the near side rump.  Mr Muirhead commented that Mr Herlihy should have made greater use of the reins to keep the horse on a straight course.  MAGNUS OPUS won the race by a neck.

DECISIONS AND REASONS:

The number of times Mr Herlihy used the whip and his continuous use of it clearly breach the guidelines.  The charge is proven.

PENALTY:

Mr Muirhead said Mr Herlihy had driven in about 450 races this season and had no relevant breaches of the rules recorded against him.  He said the offending looked worse that what it was and the offending was at the lower of the scale.  Mr Herlihy said he felt there should be more discretion and that he had mainly been trying to prevent the horse running out. 

In fixing the penalty the Committee has taken into account the following matters.

1. Mr Herlihy did not dispute the evidence
2. The submissions of Mr Muirhead
3. The submissions of Mr Herlihy
4. Mr Herlihy’s excellent driving record as far as this rule is concerned
5. The offending is at the lower end of the scale
6. The recommended starting point for penalty is a fine of $250 or a 1 week suspension.

Balancing those matters and with emphasis on the driving record and non serious nature of the offending, a fine of $150 is imposed.

B. Rowe
Chair
67674

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a

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: