NZ Metro TC – 30 March 2007 – Race 7
ID: JCA18966
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007
Race Date:
2007/03/30
Race Number:
Race 7
Decision: --
Following the running of Race 7, the Christchurch Casino NZ Trotting Derby, Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams laid an information alleging that Mr P. C. Nairn, the driver of "Shirley Temple" (10), committed a breach of Rule 867 (dropping his foot out of the foot rest) and 869(2)(a), (excessive use of the whip).
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Christchurch Casino NZ Trotting Derby, Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams laid an information alleging that Mr P. C. Nairn, the driver of "Shirley Temple" (10), committed a breach of Rule 867 (dropping his foot out of the foot rest) and 869(2)(a), (excessive use of the whip). Mr Nairn confirmed that he admitted the breach of Rule 867, but did not admit the breach of Rule 869(2)(a). This latter 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 P. C. Nairn used his whip excessively ?..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."
--Mrs Williams gave evidence, and used video coverage to show that in the last 150 metres of the race Mr Nairn used his whip on about 30 occasions, and that there was no respite in this use.
--Mr Nairn did not dispute that he had hit his horse as described by Mrs Williams, and he agreed that he was familiar with the "guidelines" for use of the whip. Mrs Williams read these guidelines which, so far as they relate to this charge, 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.
--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 horses rump --
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse's tail or rump --
- Running the whip through the horses tail"
- --
In his defence Mr Nairn raised two matters.
--Firstly he said that he did not believe he had breached the guidelines because he had not taken his whip back behind his shoulders. This is not a defence to this charge. The "guidelines" also state that the whip shall only be used forward of the shoulder with an up and down arm action only. Complying with this guideline does not mean that unlimited use of the whip is allowed. This argument is rejected.
--Secondly Mr Nairn said the "Shirley Temple" was a lazy horse and needed strong urging (not his words) to show its best. At the hearing Mr Nairn was advised that this was not a valid defence to this charge, and we undertook to explain in detail why this is so. This we now do.
--There is an appeals case [M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996)] which deals with this matter. A jockey (M. J. Enright) was the rider of "Fighter Boy". This is a case which we use as a guideline because it was an appeals decision and a Q.C. was the chairman, so it was quite an important case and there are similarities between the rules of excessive use of the whip of a jockey and a harness racing driver. In fact Harness Racing Rules says "too much" and so does this particular decision. One of the defences raised by Mr Enright on appeal was that he needed to use his whip the amount of times he did in order to win the race. The decision said ?
------"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."
--Taking all the above matters into account we found the charge to be proved
--Penalty: Mrs Williams informed the committee that Mr Nairn had no previous relevant convictions. Mrs Williams said that a fine of $200-00 was usual for a breach of the excessive use of the whip Rule. However the race was a $75,000 Group One race, and this needed to be taken into account as per Rule 1114(2), and a fine of $300-00 was recommended.
--In relation to the charge under Rule 867, Mrs Williams said that a fine of $100-00 was the usual amount, but recommended a fine of $200-00 because of Rule 1114(2).
--Mr Nairn had no relevant submissions to make as to penalty.
--We adjourned to consider penalty. We were satisfied that the typical fine for excessive use of the whip is $200-00. There were two drivers charged with this offence in the 2006 New Zealand Cup (also a Group One race, but worth considerable more than $75,000), and those two drivers were each fine $450-00. Taking into account the provisions of Rule 1114(2) we were satisfied that a fine of $300-00 was appropriate in the circumstances and Mr Nairn was fined this amount
--In relation to the other charge we found that fines for a breach of this Rule were as low as $50-00, but that a typical fine was $100-00. Taking into account the provisions of Rule 1114(2) we determined that a fine of $150-00 was appropriate and Mr Nairn was fined this amount.
----
--
----
- --
- M. Phelan
Chairman
----
--
------
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 1debea7cda9f61a317eb40758fe9662b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 30/03/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007 - Race 7
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Christchurch Casino NZ Trotting Derby, Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams laid an information alleging that Mr P. C. Nairn, the driver of "Shirley Temple" (10), committed a breach of Rule 867 (dropping his foot out of the foot rest) and 869(2)(a), (excessive use of the whip).
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--Following the running of Race 7, the Christchurch Casino NZ Trotting Derby, Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams laid an information alleging that Mr P. C. Nairn, the driver of "Shirley Temple" (10), committed a breach of Rule 867 (dropping his foot out of the foot rest) and 869(2)(a), (excessive use of the whip). Mr Nairn confirmed that he admitted the breach of Rule 867, but did not admit the breach of Rule 869(2)(a). This latter 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 P. C. Nairn used his whip excessively ?..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."
--Mrs Williams gave evidence, and used video coverage to show that in the last 150 metres of the race Mr Nairn used his whip on about 30 occasions, and that there was no respite in this use.
--Mr Nairn did not dispute that he had hit his horse as described by Mrs Williams, and he agreed that he was familiar with the "guidelines" for use of the whip. Mrs Williams read these guidelines which, so far as they relate to this charge, 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.
--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 horses rump --
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse's tail or rump --
- Running the whip through the horses tail"
In his defence Mr Nairn raised two matters.
--Firstly he said that he did not believe he had breached the guidelines because he had not taken his whip back behind his shoulders. This is not a defence to this charge. The "guidelines" also state that the whip shall only be used forward of the shoulder with an up and down arm action only. Complying with this guideline does not mean that unlimited use of the whip is allowed. This argument is rejected.
--Secondly Mr Nairn said the "Shirley Temple" was a lazy horse and needed strong urging (not his words) to show its best. At the hearing Mr Nairn was advised that this was not a valid defence to this charge, and we undertook to explain in detail why this is so. This we now do.
--There is an appeals case [M. J. Enright v. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (16 July 1996)] which deals with this matter. A jockey (M. J. Enright) was the rider of "Fighter Boy". This is a case which we use as a guideline because it was an appeals decision and a Q.C. was the chairman, so it was quite an important case and there are similarities between the rules of excessive use of the whip of a jockey and a harness racing driver. In fact Harness Racing Rules says "too much" and so does this particular decision. One of the defences raised by Mr Enright on appeal was that he needed to use his whip the amount of times he did in order to win the race. The decision said ?
------"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."
--Taking all the above matters into account we found the charge to be proved
--Penalty:
Mrs Williams informed the committee that Mr Nairn had no previous relevant convictions. Mrs Williams said that a fine of $200-00 was usual for a breach of the excessive use of the whip Rule. However the race was a $75,000 Group One race, and this needed to be taken into account as per Rule 1114(2), and a fine of $300-00 was recommended.--In relation to the charge under Rule 867, Mrs Williams said that a fine of $100-00 was the usual amount, but recommended a fine of $200-00 because of Rule 1114(2).
--Mr Nairn had no relevant submissions to make as to penalty.
--We adjourned to consider penalty. We were satisfied that the typical fine for excessive use of the whip is $200-00. There were two drivers charged with this offence in the 2006 New Zealand Cup (also a Group One race, but worth considerable more than $75,000), and those two drivers were each fine $450-00. Taking into account the provisions of Rule 1114(2) we were satisfied that a fine of $300-00 was appropriate in the circumstances and Mr Nairn was fined this amount
--In relation to the other charge we found that fines for a breach of this Rule were as low as $50-00, but that a typical fine was $100-00. Taking into account the provisions of Rule 1114(2) we determined that a fine of $150-00 was appropriate and Mr Nairn was fined this amount.
----
--
----
Chairman
----
--
------
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2, 1114.2
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: d0a1a3cf69f143fd78b09fd157164881
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c52523d42884f3decdd12847af296c5c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 30/03/2007
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 30 March 2007
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: NZ Metro TC