hearingid: c06adb429ec483c38714f0174615b0c8

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 28/03/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 28 March 2008 - Race 3

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

DECISION AND REASONS:

          Following the running of Race 3, The Travel Practice New Zealand Trotting Derby, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr A. L. Clark the driver of “Solana” (16) 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 Mr Clark used his whip excessively in the run home whilst driving “Solana” with the horse finishing in 9^th position 12¾ lengths from the winner.”

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

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

(a)   use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive

or improper manner.”

Mr Clark had indicated on the information that he did not admit the

Breach of this rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Clark also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

          Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Escott gave evidence that “Solana” had finished in 9^th place 12¾ lengths from the winner.  The total margins between 1^st and 6^th was 3 lengths, with a further 9¾ lengths back to “Solana”.

          Stipendiary Steward Mr Williams used video coverage to show that with about 300 metres to run “Solana” was well back in the field and in about 9^th place.  Mr Clark was seen to use his whip on about 20 occasions between that point and just short of the finish of the race.  At no stage did “Solana” improve its position after the 300 metre mark.

          Mr Williams also referred us to the “Use of Whip” guidelines. A charge against a driver must only relate to the Rule he is charged under, and it is not an offence to breach these guidelines.  The guidelines do however help drivers when they make a decision as to the manner in which they use the whip.  If a driver has complied with the guidelines he should expect not to be charged.

These guidelines are 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 –

i)                   Striking an obviously beaten runner

ii)                Using whip after the winning post

Improper use of the whip includes –

i)                   Using the whip as a prod

ii)                Using the whip butt end up

iii)              Using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts

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

continuously at any time during a race and 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:-

-                     Running the rein(s) over the horse’s rump

-                     Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump

-                     Running the whip through the horse’s tail

The whip shall only be used –

(A)  Within the confines of the sulky

(B)   Forward of the shoulder with an up and down arm action only

(C)   “Back handers” – wrist action only.”

          It was the Stipendiary Steward’s case that Mr Clark had used his whip excessively in the circumstances because he had no prospect of finishing in the first six places as he was always too far away.  The margin of 9¾ lengths between 6^th and 9^th was an indication that “Solana” had no prospect of finishing in the first 6 places.

          Mr Clark gave evidence and he did not dispute that he had used the whip on “Solana” as described by the Stipendiary Stewards.  He said that the guidelines referred to stated that there needs to be discernible pauses between the use of the whip to be acceptable.  Mr Clark pointed out that there were such pauses, and explained that his horse switched on and off during the running and that he needed to keep her mind on the job.  He also said that the distance between 6^th and 9^th was irrelevant and that if he had been charged with unnecessary use of the whip, then that might be so.

          After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that Mr Clark’s use of the whip was unacceptable, but that the charge of “excessive” use of the whip was not the appropriate charge in the circumstances.  We decided that the charge should be amended to “unnecessary” use of the whip.

          On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that in accordance with Rules 1111(4) and (5) the charge was amended to read as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that Mr Clark used his whip unnecessarily in the run home whilst driving “Solana” with the horse finishing in 9^th position 12¾ lengths from the winner.”

In accordance with Rule 1111(6) Mr Clark was asked if he admitted or did

not admit the information as amended.  Mr Clark informed us that he did not admit the breach.  We advised the parties that the evidence already given would be accepted as a basis for the continued hearing.  Both parties were asked if they wished to call any further evidence or wished to cross-examine any witnesses.

Mr Clark then chose to give further evidence.  He said that he believed it

was necessary for him to continue to drive his horse to finish in the best position he could, and also to keep her mind on the job.  He also said that he needed to “stay in front of the other two fillies who may or may not be selected in the oaks field”.

          We again adjourned to consider our decision.  In considering this matter we had regard to Rules 868(2) and (3) which provide as follows.

“(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures at all times during the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.

(3) Every horseman shall drive his horse out to the end of the race if he has any reasonable chance of running first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.”

          It is clear that Rule 869(2)(a) and Rule 868(3) (especially) compete with each other when it comes to the duties of the driver of a horse.  On the one hand the driver must not use his whip excessively, and on the other hand he must drive his horse out to the end of the race.  A whip is a lawful and accepted part of the horseman’s equipment and it is intended to be used to urge his horse into the best possible finishing place.  A horseman can tread a fine line between the two rules.

          In the present case it could be clearly seen that “Solana” was well back in about 9^th place with 300 metres to run.  From that point on it was driven strongly with the whip and it made no impression on the horses in front of it.  We find that there was no prospect of “Solana” finishing in the first six places, and that this was clear even with 300 metres to run. We reject Mr Clark’s reasons for continuing to drive his horse with the whip. We were also satisfied that Mr Clark’s use of the whip was “unnecessary”, and contrary to the “Use of Whip” guidelines.

          On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.

          “Having heard the evidence, and having seen the video coverage, we are satisfied that you used the whip on about twenty occasions in the final 300 metres, and that at this time your horse was an obviously beaten runner with no prospect of finishing in a dividend or stake bearing place.  We find the charge proved.”

Penalty:

          Mr Escott advised that Mr Clark had no previous relevant convictions. He also said that it needed to be taken into account that this was a Group 1 race for $75,000-00.  A fine of between $400-00 and $450-00 was recommended.

          Mr Clark said that his actions had not affected any other person’s chance in the race, and that the sum recommended was excessive.

          We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.  We were aware of two earlier similar cases in a Group 1 race where drivers had been fined $450-00 each.  We took into account that Mr Clark had no previous convictions for a breach of this Rule and decided that a fine of $400-00 would be appropriate in this case.

          On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr Clark was fined the sum of $400-00.

J.  M. Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2, 1111.6, 868.3

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 7f98c28ee87c64454bfe63a6b095a415

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: Race 3

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: 71dcc8cdaf6754cdbe2701cf4b0c1e19

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 28/03/2008

meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 28 March 2008

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: nz-metro-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: NZ Metro TC