Otago RC 21 October 2013 – R 2
ID: JCA10582
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Otago RC - 21 October 2013
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2013/10/21
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
Ms Black admitted the breach, which is thus found proved.
Penalty:
Ms Black is fined the sum of $450 and reminded of her professional obligations.
Charge:
Mr Davidson alleged that Ms Black used her whip forward of the shoulder when riding BRAEHILL in race 2, the CLIFF ANDERSON PHOTOGRAPHY RATING 65.
Rule 638(3)(c) states: “A Rider shall not strike a horse forward of its shoulder”.
Facts:
Mr Davidson demonstrated on the video that as the field was turning for home, and shortly thereafter, the respondent used her whip on BRAEHILL forward of the shoulder. There were some 6 or 7 strikes and although these were outside the 200 metres, he indicated there would not be a charge of excessive use of the whip. Ms Black then used the whip behind the saddle.
Mr Davidson explained that Ms Whelan, who was riding the horse to the inside of Ms Black, was endeavouring to shift the respondent wider on the track in an endeavour to obtain a run. Ms Black was trying to keep her in, but he emphasised this was no excuse for Ms Black to hit the horse as she had. He said that when the stewards questioned Ms Black, she said she thought she had hit the horse on the shoulder.
Ms Black explained she had received a lot of pressure from Ms Whelan, who was trying to push her out. She said this had gone on for some 100 metres. She said she was trying not to lose her position and this was why she had used the whip at this point in the race. She emphasised that she had not realised at the time that she had hit BRAEHILL forward of the shoulder as she would never do this, and the reason for her strikes being so far forward on the horse was that the saddle had slipped. She said when she realised the strikes were forward of the shoulder she immediately went to behind the saddle.
Ms Black also stated she preferred the saddle further back than most other riders and thought the saddle had slipped forward in the back straight. Mr Davidson froze the video at the winning post and it was evident that the saddle had indeed moved forward by this stage of the race. He said it was impossible to determine just when the saddle had slipped, but he had no reason to dispute Ms Black’s comment.
Ms Black said BRAEHILL was a nuggety horse and awkward at times to ride. She thought the strikes might have been to the shoulder and her whip action had carried the strikes forward on to the neck of the horse. She said she had never hit the horse on its head and Mr Davidson agreed with this saying there was no evidence on the videos of the horse flinching, which it is what he would expect to see, if the strikes had been to the head.
Mr Tyler said the respondent had used the same whip action as she normally did and, with the saddle being forward, she would have been striking the horse in a different place than was usual. He emphasised the horse needed a vigorous rider. He also thought there may have been some connection with the shoulder of the horse with the whip and it then going forward of the shoulder with Ms Black’s arm action.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Davidson produced the respondent’s record, which was clear under this Rule. Mr Davidson stated that Ms Black had fallen foul of the excessive use of the whip Rule on a number of occasion this season but he believed that she had taken notice of the stewards’ comments and the JCA penalties and had changed her behaviour. She had had over 120 rides without further incident.
He said her actions were apparent on the trackside film and this was not a good look for the industry when regard was had to animal welfare issues. He submitted a fine of $500 was appropriate or 2 to 3 days suspension.
Ms Black apologised for her actions and emphasised she had gone to behind the saddle once she realised she was hitting the horse forward of the shoulder. She asked for a fine rather than a suspension as the Riccarton Carnival was coming up.
Reasons for Penalty:
Mr Davidson has rightly stated there are animal welfare issues involved with this particular breach of the Rule. I am satisfied the strikes were to the neck and not the head. If this were not the case, the starting point would be higher. There is a need to hold Ms Black accountable and to deter her and others from such actions.
I take a starting point of a fine of $500. Aggravating features are the number of strikes and the fact that the whip was being used on the horse with approximately 400 metres to race, other than in accordance with the whip guidelines. I increase the starting point to $600 because of these factors.
A significant mitigating factor is that the saddle had slipped and that Ms Black was further forward on the horse than she would otherwise have been. I accept her statement that she was unaware initially that the strikes were to the neck and when this became apparent to her, she immediately desisted. I also take into account her ready admission of the breach and her remorse, which is clearly evident. Finally I take note of Mr Davidson’s remarks that Ms Black has heeded the penalties imposed under the excessive use of the whip rule and she is to be further encouraged in this regard. I also have regard to the fact that she is an apprentice riding solely in the South Island. These factors merit a reduction of $150.
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: 0c6ef1bbfceeb8e56d2c710da05ab599
informantnumber: A1899
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 09/10/2013
hearing_title: Otago RC 21 October 2013 - R 2
charge:
Mr Davidson alleged that Ms Black used her whip forward of the shoulder when riding BRAEHILL in race 2, the CLIFF ANDERSON PHOTOGRAPHY RATING 65.
Rule 638(3)(c) states: “A Rider shall not strike a horse forward of its shoulder”.
facts:
Mr Davidson demonstrated on the video that as the field was turning for home, and shortly thereafter, the respondent used her whip on BRAEHILL forward of the shoulder. There were some 6 or 7 strikes and although these were outside the 200 metres, he indicated there would not be a charge of excessive use of the whip. Ms Black then used the whip behind the saddle.
Mr Davidson explained that Ms Whelan, who was riding the horse to the inside of Ms Black, was endeavouring to shift the respondent wider on the track in an endeavour to obtain a run. Ms Black was trying to keep her in, but he emphasised this was no excuse for Ms Black to hit the horse as she had. He said that when the stewards questioned Ms Black, she said she thought she had hit the horse on the shoulder.
Ms Black explained she had received a lot of pressure from Ms Whelan, who was trying to push her out. She said this had gone on for some 100 metres. She said she was trying not to lose her position and this was why she had used the whip at this point in the race. She emphasised that she had not realised at the time that she had hit BRAEHILL forward of the shoulder as she would never do this, and the reason for her strikes being so far forward on the horse was that the saddle had slipped. She said when she realised the strikes were forward of the shoulder she immediately went to behind the saddle.
Ms Black also stated she preferred the saddle further back than most other riders and thought the saddle had slipped forward in the back straight. Mr Davidson froze the video at the winning post and it was evident that the saddle had indeed moved forward by this stage of the race. He said it was impossible to determine just when the saddle had slipped, but he had no reason to dispute Ms Black’s comment.
Ms Black said BRAEHILL was a nuggety horse and awkward at times to ride. She thought the strikes might have been to the shoulder and her whip action had carried the strikes forward on to the neck of the horse. She said she had never hit the horse on its head and Mr Davidson agreed with this saying there was no evidence on the videos of the horse flinching, which it is what he would expect to see, if the strikes had been to the head.
Mr Tyler said the respondent had used the same whip action as she normally did and, with the saddle being forward, she would have been striking the horse in a different place than was usual. He emphasised the horse needed a vigorous rider. He also thought there may have been some connection with the shoulder of the horse with the whip and it then going forward of the shoulder with Ms Black’s arm action.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Ms Black admitted the breach, which is thus found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Davidson produced the respondent’s record, which was clear under this Rule. Mr Davidson stated that Ms Black had fallen foul of the excessive use of the whip Rule on a number of occasion this season but he believed that she had taken notice of the stewards’ comments and the JCA penalties and had changed her behaviour. She had had over 120 rides without further incident.
He said her actions were apparent on the trackside film and this was not a good look for the industry when regard was had to animal welfare issues. He submitted a fine of $500 was appropriate or 2 to 3 days suspension.
Ms Black apologised for her actions and emphasised she had gone to behind the saddle once she realised she was hitting the horse forward of the shoulder. She asked for a fine rather than a suspension as the Riccarton Carnival was coming up.
reasonsforpenalty:
Mr Davidson has rightly stated there are animal welfare issues involved with this particular breach of the Rule. I am satisfied the strikes were to the neck and not the head. If this were not the case, the starting point would be higher. There is a need to hold Ms Black accountable and to deter her and others from such actions.
I take a starting point of a fine of $500. Aggravating features are the number of strikes and the fact that the whip was being used on the horse with approximately 400 metres to race, other than in accordance with the whip guidelines. I increase the starting point to $600 because of these factors.
A significant mitigating factor is that the saddle had slipped and that Ms Black was further forward on the horse than she would otherwise have been. I accept her statement that she was unaware initially that the strikes were to the neck and when this became apparent to her, she immediately desisted. I also take into account her ready admission of the breach and her remorse, which is clearly evident. Finally I take note of Mr Davidson’s remarks that Ms Black has heeded the penalties imposed under the excessive use of the whip rule and she is to be further encouraged in this regard. I also have regard to the fact that she is an apprentice riding solely in the South Island. These factors merit a reduction of $150.
penalty:
Ms Black is fined the sum of $450 and reminded of her professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(3)(c)
Informant: Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms R Black - Apprentice Jockey
Otherperson: Mr K Tyler - Licensed Trainer assisting Ms Black
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c4f0771177d391d953547956ad802501
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 82097b20b2ed7c6b9c25580aa3c15256
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/10/2013
meet_title: Otago RC - 21 October 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: otago-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Otago RC