NZ Metro TC – 12 November 2004 –

Following the running of Race 5, the Stewart Dawsons Jewellery Graduation Mobile Pace (Final), an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr M. P. Jones, the driver of Mulcay (14), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.

"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that M. P. Jones used his whip excessively in the run home and unnecessarily after the winning post."

Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.

"(2) No horseman shall during any race:-

Mr Jones had indicated on the information that he did not admit the breach

of this rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Jones also agreed that he understood the charges and the rule.

Mr Escott gave evidence that Mr Jones was seen to use his whip in what was considered to be an excessive manner over the concluding stages of the race. When spoken to before the hearing Mr Jones had agreed that he had used the whip on 23 occasions before the winning post. Video coverage of the race was used to show that Mr Jones had his horse close to the lead when entering the straight for the final time. At first Mr Jones was seen to use his whip sparingly, but when well into the straight Mr Jones had begun to use his whip almost continuously.

Mr Escott also gave evidence that Mr Jones had used his whip after the winning post. The video coverage of this use of the whip was not clear, but Mr Jones did admit that he had hit the sulky shaft after reaching the winning post.

During the hearing there was reference to the guidelines on the "Use of the Whip" as published in the New Zealand Harness Racing Weekly. Mr Jones agreed that he was familiar with these guidelines.

These guidelines, so far as they are relevant to the present charges, state as follows ?

"Excessive use of the whip simply means "too much" and relates to the number of times and/or the force with which the whip is used.

Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.

A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.

Unnecessary use of the whip includes ?

--
--
1. Striking an obviously beaten runner
--
1. Using whip after the wining post

Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2), no horseman shall use the whip

continuously at any time during a race other than inside the final 50 metres of the home straight and only if the horse is holding or improving its position and has a reasonable chance of finishing in the first six places. Otherwise there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or the use of the whip shall be interrupted by alternative acceptable actions.

These actions include:-

--
--
1. Running the rein(s) over the horses rump
--
1. Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse's tail or rump
--
2. Running the whip through the horses tail"

Mr Jones gave evidence and said that he did not believe that he had used the whip excessively. In answer to a question from Stipendiary Steward Mr Larkins Mr Jones agreed that the horse was a bit of a "bludger" and needed a "touch up" to make it do its best. Mr Jones also said that the horse did respond to the use of the whip.

The decision in the Enright case was also raised by Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre during the hearing. Mr Jones did not appear to be conversant with this decision, and we undertook to cover this matter in our written decision. This we now do.

The case M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996 at page 6) was an Appeal case relating to thoroughbred racing, but the rules and principles relating to the use of the whip are very similar. In that case the defendant gave evidence that his horse was lazy and needed the encouragement of the whip to do his best. It was stated that ?

I am satisfied that the above interpretation of the Rules of Racing also

apply to the Rules of Harness Racing, and for this reason we reject Mr Jones' argument that his horse needed the treatment it received.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision on these two charges. On return to the Enquiry Room we informed the parties that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.

"Mr Jones, having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied you used your whip on about 23 occasions. We also find that such use occurred in about the last 150 ? 170 metres. The guidelines on "Use of the Whip" describes "excessive" as being "too much" and relates to the number of times and/or force with which the whip is used. The guidelines also apply whether or not the whip is used on the horse, harness or sulky. We find that the whip was used excessively. In relation to the unnecessary use of the whip the evidence is less clear and we dismiss this part of the charge."

Penalty:                                                                         Mr Escott advised us that Mr Jones had no previous relevant convictions and recommended a fine of  $250-00.     Mr Jones submitted that this amount was too high.

After adjourning to consider the matter of penalty, and after checking previous fines for similar offences, we were satisfied that a fine of $250-00 was appropriate and Mr Jones was fined this amount.