Invercargill HRC – 26 April 2008 –

hearingid: 58f1835165a21155c34579a7c6b9b038

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 26/04/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Invercargill HRC - 26 April 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

An information, No.66853, was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr CJ Allison under Rule 869(2)(a) alleging that horseman Mr BR Shirley, driver of WHEN THE MUSICS OVER, used his whip excessively over the final stages in race 10, The Ascot Park Hotel Pace, on 13 April 2008.

DECISION & REASON:

An information, No.66853, was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr CJ Allison under Rule 869(2)(a) alleging that horseman Mr BR Shirley, driver of WHEN THE MUSICS OVER, used his whip excessively over the final stages in race 10, The Ascot Park Hotel Pace, on 13 April 2008.

It was noted that Mr Shirley did not admit a breach of the rule.

Mr Allison read out the relevant rule, after which Mr Shirley stated he understood its content.

Mr Allison produced an email from the Mr Edward Rennell the General Manager of Harness Racing New Zealand, dated 18 April 2008 authorising under the direction of Mr Escott (Chief Stipendiary Steward of Harness Racing New Zealand), under Rule 1103(4c) to charge Mr Shirley .

Stipendiary Steward Mr PT Knowles stated that he was not on duty the day of the alleged incident.   Mr Knowles then used the Trackside video clip to highlight the alleged incident.

Mr Knowles stated that WHEN THE MUSICS OVER (BR Shirley) was in the trailing position prior to the home turn on the final circuit of the race, Mr Shirley moved outwards from the trailing position, and once straightening his horse up to the finish line, shook the horse’s reins four or five times.

Mr Knowles continued stating that in his opinion, that from about the 200 metre mark, that Mr Shirley had hit his horse continuously, counting eighteen strikes.

Mr Knowles stated that he believed the last strike was a “push”, rather than a full strike, and that it was not counted in the total of eighteen.

Mr Allison stated that he had spoken to Mr Shirley on the day of the alleged incident, regarding his whip action, advising Mr Shirley that he must break his whip action up.    A copy of the Stipendiary Steward’s raceday report was produced verifying Mr Allison’s comments regarding that a discussion took place.

Mr Shirley, when directly questioned confirmed Mr Allison had spoken to him regarding the incident.

Mr Shirley stated that he shook the reins at WHEN THE MUSICS OVER four or five times, then transferred his whip into the other hand.

Mr Shirley confirmed, in his opinion, he struck his horse eighteen times.   Mr Shirley then used the video clip to demonstrate, and back up his verbal statement.

Mr Shirley continued, stating that in the past he had offended under this rule, but that in recent times with the assistance of the Otago/Southland stipendiary panel he had worked hard to rectify the problem.    Mr Shirley also stated that in Canterbury things were different under this rule, but that all of the Southland horsemen had been made fully aware by the Southland/Otago stipendiary panel, that up to twenty strikes with the whip was acceptable.

Decision:

After carefully considering the verbal evidence of the stipendiary stewards, Mr Knowles and Mr Allison, coupled with the video clips, and Mr Shirley’s evidence, I have found the evidence to be inconclusive, and as a result the alleged breach of Rule 869(2)(a) is dismissed.

In my opinion, there is no clear concise evidence that Mr Shirley had struck his horse WHEN THE MUSICS OVER more than the accepted guidelines in Southland of up to twenty times.

The shaking of the reins by Mr Shirley is clearly inconclusive, in that whether the horse WHEN THE MUSICS OVER was struck.

Mr Knowles and Mr Allison in their verbal evidence did not count or, take the “rein shaking” as a whip action.

With regard to the last strike, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient doubt around the action, and that a “push” is a reasonable assumption.   Again the video evidence is not conclusive in my opinion.    There is no dispute that the whip action has been continuous which all parties agreed upon.

As one of the more experienced judicial panellists in the Otago/Southland region, I am fully aware of the accepted guidelines under his rule, and the pro-active role the regions stipendiary stewards have taken with horsemen to ensure a fair and reasonable approach is taken.

In this instance Mr Shirley has been open and forthright in giving his evidence, and although only narrowly working within the boundaries of the guidelines, there is sufficient doubt for the breach to be dismissed.

Mr Shirley was reminded of his professional obligations under this rule.

ND Skelt

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a, 1103.4C

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: