NZ Metro TC – 3 October 2008 – Race 3

hearingid: 13653892432b9b245c826dc3b20c4ea1

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 03/10/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 3 October 2008 - Race 3

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 3, the Sydenham Bakery Mobile Pace, an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr J. R. Dunn alleging a breach of Rule 869(2)(a), excessive use of the whip.  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 J. R. Dunn used the  whip excessively on MAJHAC MEDDLE  in the run home.”

Rule 869(2)(a), so far as it relates to the present charge, reads as

follows.

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

            (a) use his whip in an …. excessive ….manner.”

So far as they relate to this charge the “Use of the Whip” guidelines provide 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.

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 use of the whip shall be interrupted by acceptable alternative actions.

These actions include:-

i)          Running the rein(s) over the horses rump

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

iii)                Running the whip through the horses tail”

Mr Dunn had indicated on the information that he did not admit this

breach of the rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Mr Escott gave evidence that Mr Dunn was seen to use his whip on 20 occasions in the run home.  The first 10 strikes were within the “guidelines”, but it was alleged that the last 10 strikes were in breach of the Rule. Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre used video coverage to illustrate this incident.  It was seen that there were distinct pauses in Mr Dunn’s use of the whip on the first ten occasions.  On the final ten occasions the use of the whip was continuous.

Mr Dunn accepted that he had used his whip as described by the Stipendiary Stewards, and he also accepted that he was familiar with the whip “guidelines”.  Mr Dunn also admitted that his use of the whip “looked bad”, but that had he not used the whip in the way that he had he would not have won the race.  The winning margin in the race was a nose.

The Enright decision was mentioned by the Stipendiary Stewards during the hearing, and we said that this decision would be covered when we made our decision, which we now do.  

In the appeal case of M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996 at page 6) it was stated that –

“All horses are meant to compete in the race under the same conditions and Rules.  If a horse has an inherent flaw in its personality or makeup so that it

needs to be ridden hard with the whip, sobeit.   But it still must only be ridden within the provisions of the Rules of Racing.  Likewise it is not an excuse for a breach of the Rules for one to say it was necessary to ride in that particular way in order to win a race.  If the horse race cannot be won within the application of the Rules of Racing which govern the manner in which the race is to be run, then sobeit and it cannot win.  The same rules apply to all competitors and if there is some inherent deficiency or makeup in the character or ability of a horse that requires it to be treated in a way that is outside the Rules then that is not permitted.”

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.  On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be prepared later and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Dunn used his whip twenty times in the run home.  The first ten strikes were within the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.  The final ten strikes were made without any distinct pause.  Mr Dunn agreed with these figures, and agreed that he was aware of the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.  In his defence Mr Dunn said that his use of the whip “looked bad” but had he not used his whip as he did, he would not have won the race.

This is not a defence to a charge of excessive use of the whip.  In the M. J. Enright decision (an appeal decision from thoroughbred racing) it was held [here I read the above excerpt from the Enright decision].  We are satisfied that by using his whip in the manner he did Mr Dunn used it excessively, and we find the charge proved.”

Penalty:

In relation to penalty Mr Escott advised that Mr Dunn had no previous convictions.  As this was a Premier night and a $20,000-00 race a fine of $250-00 was recommended.

Mr Dunn had no submissions to make with regard to penalty.  We were satisfied that a fine of $250-00 was appropriate in this case and Mr Dunn was fined this amount.

J M Phelan

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2

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: