hearingid: 424b5290cc73b28205e4d8c74275c517

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 15/06/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 15 June 2010 - R 1

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: B N Orange, Licensed Open Horseman

Information No: 68989

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date: 15 June 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 1

Rule No: 869 (2) (a) & (c)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member

Plea: Not Admitted

Also present:

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 1, John Jones Steel Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr B N Orange, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) & (c) in that Mr Orange as the driver of FASHION RAINS in the race, “used his whip in an improper manner and used his whip outside the confines of the sulky when using it to strike the inside sulky disc”.

Mr Orange was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(2)   No horseman shall during any race:-

       (a)    use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner;

       (b)   project his whip outside the sulky or draw his whip further back

              than the sulky seat.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mrs Williams alleged that, after entering the home straight, Mr Orange began using his whip in a manner “going around the wheel” which resulted in the wheel disc shattering with parts of it coming off during the run home. The pieces flew in the air in front of trailing runners, she said.

Mr McIntyre showed video replays of the final 200-300 metres of the race. He pointed out Mr Orange on FASHION RAINS in the lead turning for home. He pointed out Mr Orange using his whip across the shaft, clearly outside the confines of the sulky, he alleged. Pieces of the disc could clearly be seen “to fly off’ when struck with the whip.

Mrs Williams alleged that this was not an acceptable use of the whip and was, therefore, improper. The whip had been taken outside the confines of the sulky and used outside the wheel.

Mr Orange submitted that a whip could not break a wheel disc. He explained that the horse had cast a shoe on the turn which had made a hole in the disc, thereby weakening it. He stated that he had been using this whip style for several months and nothing had been said to him. He had learned the technique from a leading North Island horseman who uses the technique “every week” and who had never been spoken to, warned or fined for it. The technique was to strike the wheel disc and, unfortunately, on this occasion, the disc had shattered. He did not regard it as “improper”. He submitted that a warning would have been appropriate.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Orange acknowledged that the whip had been used outside the confines of the sulky but, he said, he was well clear of other runners. He questioned why the Stewards had only noticed it now. He explained that the noise of the whip striking the disc tended to encourage the horse. No other runner had been affected by the pieces of the shattering disc, he submitted.

REASONS:

In considering the matter, the Committee looked at the relevant Rules and also the guidelines regarding use of the whip issued by the Chief Stipendiary Steward.

In the Committee’s view, the following points are of significance:

1.      The guidelines state that “improper” use of the whip includes using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts”. Mr Orange had admitted to using his whip to strike the wheel disc with the aim that the noise generated thereby would encourage his horse. Furthermore, this could clearly be seen from the video replays. It was most graphically illustrated by the fact that the left hand wheel disc disintegrated while being struck with the whip during the course of the run home.

2.      The guidelines also state that the whip shall only be used, firstly, within the confines of the sulky and, secondly, forward of the shoulder with an up and down arm action only. Mr Orange acknowledged to the Committee that he was using the whip outside the confines of the sulky and, furthermore, it was quite apparent to the Committee that Mr Orange’s whip action was not with an up  and down arm action. We do not believe that the guidelines intend to permit what might be described as a sideways action.

Mr Orange told the Committee that he learned this particular whip action from a leading North Island horseman and that he, Mr Orange, has been using the whip action for some three months without having previously been warned or charged in relation to it. We trust that, after this decision, horsemen will be made aware that use of the whip in this fashion is in breach of the guidelines and not acceptable.

In response to Mr Orange’s comments that he has been doing this for three months without problems before now, this Committee cannot concern itself with what has happened in the past – we are only concerned with Mr Orange’s drive on FASHION RAINS in Race 1 today.

The Committee was satisfied that Mr Orange, has on this occasion, used his whip in an improper manner and, also, that he has projected his whip outside the sulky in breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) and (c).

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mrs Williams referred to the Penalty Guide. For a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a), the starting point is a fine of $200 and/or a suspension for 1 week. Under Rule 869 (2) (c), the starting point is fine of $200 and/or a suspension of 2 weeks. Mrs Williams submitted that a suspension was not called for in this instance and she submitted that a fine of between $200 and $250 was appropriate. Mr Orange had a clear record as far as breaches of the Rule were concerned.

Mr Orange submitted that, in his view, a warning would have sufficed. He repeated that he had not been spoken to or warned in relation to his whip action and that other drivers were using a similar style.

REASONS:

Mrs Williams submitted that a fine of $250-300 was appropriate. She informed the Committee that Mr Orange has a clear record and we have taken this into account in arriving at penalty.

Mr Orange has submitted that a warning only is appropriate and he referred again to the fact, he says, that other horsemen have been using a similar whip action with impunity.

The Committee cannot concern itself with that but, while Mr Orange may consider himself as being something of a scapegoat in that he is the first driver charged in these circumstances, the Committee needed to impose a penalty appropriate to this particular breach. In the circumstances, the Committee was prepared to extend some leniency.

PENALTY:

Mr Orange was fined the sum of $200.

R G McKenzie                  S C Ching

Chairman                        Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(2)(a) & (c)

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: