NZ Metropolitan TC 2 November 2018 – R 5 – Chair, Mr D Jackson
ID: JCA16883
Meet Title:
NZ Metro TC - 2 November 2018
Meet Chair:
DJackson
Meet Committee Member 1:
HWeston
Race Date:
2018/11/02
Race Number:
R 5
Decision:
In light of Ms Rasmussen’s admission of the charge and the clear video evidence of excessive use of the whip the breach was found proved.
Penalty:
Ms Rasmussen is fined $1000 for her excessive use of the whip on this occasion.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 5, the McMillan Equine Feeds Sires’ Stakes (Heat 5) Mobile Pace, an Information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren against Ms N Rasmussen, alleging a breach of Rule 869(2)(A), in that Ms Rasmussen used her whip excessively over the concluding stages when driving the winner, A Bettor Act.
Rule 869(2) provides 'No horseman shall during any race use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive, or improper manner'.
The Use of Whip Guidelines (effective 1 November 2017) provides (b) No horseman is permitted to use their whip in a striking motion on more than ten occasions inside the final 400 metres. This is inclusive of “backhanders” and the use applies to the horse, harness and/or sulky.
Ms Rasmussen admitted the charge in writing and attended the hearing accompanied by Mr Mark Purdon.
Through video evidence Mr Ydgren showed Ms Rasmussen strike Mr Kalypso with the whip 11 times during its run down the home straight to the finish concluding some 50 or so metres from the finishing post.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Ydgren pointed to Ms Rasmussen’s recent prior breach of this rule at the Kaikoura Trotting Club’s meeting on 29 October 2018 where Ms Rasmussen was fined $300 (for thirteen strikes). Mr Ydgren submitted having regard to the penalty guide that for a second breach of the rule, the guide called for a 3 – 5 day suspension and that in all the circumstances a 3 day suspension was appropriate.
Mr Ydgren accepted that Ms Rasmussen had broken up the strikes throughout the last 400 metres of the race and that they were light strikes or reminders, which the horse plainly responded to. He assessed Ms Rasmussen’s culpability as low.
Mr Ydgren acknowledged that any suspension would see Ms Rasmussen miss a full book of engagements for the upcoming New Zealand Cup day meeting. Accordingly, and acknowledging that betting markets were already open for a number of races that day, and having regard to Ms Rasmussen’s engagement to drive the likely favourite in the Cup itself, Mr Ydgren would not oppose an alternative sanction on this occasion.
Ms Rasmussen submitted that a suspension would prevent her from driving a number of leading chances during the New Zealand Cup day meeting including in the Cup itself.
Ms Rasmussen was apologetic and understanding that the situation was one in which on a strict interpretation of the guide required her to be suspended. She emphasised though that A Bettor Act responded to the whip and that her urgings saw the horse win the race. She was careful to be light with her strikes and broke them up. She conceded that she lost count as she closer to the lead.
Mr Purdon supported her submissions and asked for leniency noting the effect on his stable and owners should the horse be suspended. He submitted that the punishment should meet the breach and that a suspension for 11 strikes was disproportionate response.
The Committee gave Mr Ydgren an opportunity to reply. Mr Ydgren accepted that the circumstances here might justify a departure from the penalty guide and the imposition of a fine. However, Mr Ydgren left that decision to the Committee.
Reasons for Penalty:
The introduction to the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees makes it clear that the guide “should not be seen as either a replacement for, or an interpretation of the Rules”. The guide states its key purpose “is to ensure consistency in the imposition of penalties, but nonetheless to retain a Judicial Committee’s discretion and for this discretion to be exercised within readily ascertainable and thus transparent parameters. The integrity of racing demands no less.”
The guide makes it clear that “the guidelines as to penalties are just that: they are not intended to override the discretion that is vested by the Rules in raceday Judicial Committees.” Whilst there is an expectation that Committees will operate within the guidelines (in order to promote consistency and fairness) the guide is clear that Committees may depart from the guidelines provided there is “good reason to believe that the case before it has some special characteristic that justifies the imposition of a penalty greater or lesser than that suggested by the guidelines. The Judicial Committee must carefully explain any departure from the guidelines.
The Committee determines that this is a special characteristic case which justifies the exercise of the discretion and the imposition of a different penalty to that suggested by the guide. Ms Rasmussen will be fined $1000.
The special characteristic which the Committee has identified is that any suspension would capture the New Zealand Cup day meeting with adverse consequences for Mr Purdon’s stable, his owners and connections and the wider betting public (who may have already invested in the knowledge of Ms Rasmussen’s likely engagements).
Regardless, the Committee has reflected on the circumstances of the breach here and weighed that against the consequences of suspension on Ms Rasmussen and the connections of the horses racing on New Zealand Cup day. We agree with Mr Purdon that to suspend her in these circumstances would be a disproportionate sanction for a breach of this nature. Were it not for these special characteristics and the punishment of the connections and the betting public identified above, the Committee would have adopted a starting point suspension of three days and reduced that to a two day suspension taking into account Ms Rasmussen’s low level culpability (the three day starting point being referenced to a medium culpability breach).
The Committee has determined to exercise its discretion to protect both the connections of multiple horses engaged to race on New Zealand Cup day.
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: ae2dff424de7997819b0864dbb38126c
informantnumber: A12412
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Excessive use of whip
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 05/11/2018
hearing_title: NZ Metropolitan TC 2 November 2018 - R 5 - Chair, Mr D Jackson
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 5, the McMillan Equine Feeds Sires’ Stakes (Heat 5) Mobile Pace, an Information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren against Ms N Rasmussen, alleging a breach of Rule 869(2)(A), in that Ms Rasmussen used her whip excessively over the concluding stages when driving the winner, A Bettor Act.
Rule 869(2) provides 'No horseman shall during any race use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive, or improper manner'.
The Use of Whip Guidelines (effective 1 November 2017) provides (b) No horseman is permitted to use their whip in a striking motion on more than ten occasions inside the final 400 metres. This is inclusive of “backhanders” and the use applies to the horse, harness and/or sulky.
Ms Rasmussen admitted the charge in writing and attended the hearing accompanied by Mr Mark Purdon.
Through video evidence Mr Ydgren showed Ms Rasmussen strike Mr Kalypso with the whip 11 times during its run down the home straight to the finish concluding some 50 or so metres from the finishing post.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
In light of Ms Rasmussen’s admission of the charge and the clear video evidence of excessive use of the whip the breach was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Ydgren pointed to Ms Rasmussen’s recent prior breach of this rule at the Kaikoura Trotting Club’s meeting on 29 October 2018 where Ms Rasmussen was fined $300 (for thirteen strikes). Mr Ydgren submitted having regard to the penalty guide that for a second breach of the rule, the guide called for a 3 – 5 day suspension and that in all the circumstances a 3 day suspension was appropriate.
Mr Ydgren accepted that Ms Rasmussen had broken up the strikes throughout the last 400 metres of the race and that they were light strikes or reminders, which the horse plainly responded to. He assessed Ms Rasmussen’s culpability as low.
Mr Ydgren acknowledged that any suspension would see Ms Rasmussen miss a full book of engagements for the upcoming New Zealand Cup day meeting. Accordingly, and acknowledging that betting markets were already open for a number of races that day, and having regard to Ms Rasmussen’s engagement to drive the likely favourite in the Cup itself, Mr Ydgren would not oppose an alternative sanction on this occasion.
Ms Rasmussen submitted that a suspension would prevent her from driving a number of leading chances during the New Zealand Cup day meeting including in the Cup itself.
Ms Rasmussen was apologetic and understanding that the situation was one in which on a strict interpretation of the guide required her to be suspended. She emphasised though that A Bettor Act responded to the whip and that her urgings saw the horse win the race. She was careful to be light with her strikes and broke them up. She conceded that she lost count as she closer to the lead.
Mr Purdon supported her submissions and asked for leniency noting the effect on his stable and owners should the horse be suspended. He submitted that the punishment should meet the breach and that a suspension for 11 strikes was disproportionate response.
The Committee gave Mr Ydgren an opportunity to reply. Mr Ydgren accepted that the circumstances here might justify a departure from the penalty guide and the imposition of a fine. However, Mr Ydgren left that decision to the Committee.
reasonsforpenalty:
The introduction to the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees makes it clear that the guide “should not be seen as either a replacement for, or an interpretation of the Rules”. The guide states its key purpose “is to ensure consistency in the imposition of penalties, but nonetheless to retain a Judicial Committee’s discretion and for this discretion to be exercised within readily ascertainable and thus transparent parameters. The integrity of racing demands no less.”
The guide makes it clear that “the guidelines as to penalties are just that: they are not intended to override the discretion that is vested by the Rules in raceday Judicial Committees.” Whilst there is an expectation that Committees will operate within the guidelines (in order to promote consistency and fairness) the guide is clear that Committees may depart from the guidelines provided there is “good reason to believe that the case before it has some special characteristic that justifies the imposition of a penalty greater or lesser than that suggested by the guidelines. The Judicial Committee must carefully explain any departure from the guidelines.
The Committee determines that this is a special characteristic case which justifies the exercise of the discretion and the imposition of a different penalty to that suggested by the guide. Ms Rasmussen will be fined $1000.
The special characteristic which the Committee has identified is that any suspension would capture the New Zealand Cup day meeting with adverse consequences for Mr Purdon’s stable, his owners and connections and the wider betting public (who may have already invested in the knowledge of Ms Rasmussen’s likely engagements).
Regardless, the Committee has reflected on the circumstances of the breach here and weighed that against the consequences of suspension on Ms Rasmussen and the connections of the horses racing on New Zealand Cup day. We agree with Mr Purdon that to suspend her in these circumstances would be a disproportionate sanction for a breach of this nature. Were it not for these special characteristics and the punishment of the connections and the betting public identified above, the Committee would have adopted a starting point suspension of three days and reduced that to a two day suspension taking into account Ms Rasmussen’s low level culpability (the three day starting point being referenced to a medium culpability breach).
The Committee has determined to exercise its discretion to protect both the connections of multiple horses engaged to race on New Zealand Cup day.
penalty:
Ms Rasmussen is fined $1000 for her excessive use of the whip on this occasion.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2)(A) and Whip Regulations
Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: a98ad902241d5385387c74eafbd7c41d
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 466ac34069138b47c34110a2cc527b3b
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/11/2018
meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 2 November 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: nz-metro-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: DJackson
meet_pm1: HWeston
meet_pm2: none
name: NZ Metro TC