hearingid: 6b82b97bd1db6965584a7139fcdb66a3

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 8

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: K R Williams, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: B J Lilley, Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver

Information No: 68985

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date: 15 June 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 8

Rule No: 869 (2) (a)

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

Plea: Not Admitted

Also present:

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 8, 3 TAB’S Bishopdale-Bush Inn-Holy Grail Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mrs K R Williams, against Licensed Advanced Amateur Driver, Mr B J Lilley, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) in that Mr Lilley as the driver of STAR MACH in the race, “used his whip excessively in the run home”.

Mr Lilley 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.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mrs Williams informed the Committee that the Stewards believed that Mr Lilley had used his whip excessively on STAR MACH in Race 8. She pointed out, on a video replay, Mr Lilley racing 3-back on the inner approaching the home turn. He used the whip on 15 occasions in quick succession with no pause between the strikes. She referred to his arm action in that he appeared to be using his hand behind his head before bringing it down, moving his whole shoulder. Under the guidelines, an up and down arm action is required forward of the shoulder.

Mrs Williams submitted that, because of Mr Lilley’s arm action, there was some force behind the whip – more so than would have been possible with an up and down arm action. She described the strikes as “haymakers”.

To use the whip 15 times with no alternative actions as per the guidelines was excessive, Mrs Williams alleged. Mr Lilley’s use of the whip was continuous over a short distance. Mrs Williams stressed the force used, the whip action and the number of strikes, which was too many, she alleged. It was not a good look, Mrs Williams submitted.

Mr Lilley said that the horse got 2 or 3 smacks on the rump early in the run home and he responded quite well. He believed that he had a chance of “getting some money”. He explained that he had hit the shaft all the way down the straight to make a “very loud noise” and did not strike the horse. The horse was “a big, lazy horse” and that is why he gave him “a few haymakers” on the shaft. He ceased using the whip after he realised it had no chance or running in the money. It did not “look pretty” but the horse was not “knocked about”.

Mr Lilley acknowledged that he was ware of the guidelines regarding use of the whip.

REASONS:

The guidelines provide that 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”. In most instances, 15 strikes would not be deemed excessive in terms of the number of times. However, it is clear in this case that the whip was used by Mr Lilley with some considerable force. Mr Lilley did not deny this but relied on the fact, he alleged, that the majority of blows were to the sulky shaft rather than to the horse.

At the same time, Mr Lilley admitted to us that he was aware of what the guidelines provide – that is, they apply whether striking the horse, harness or sulky. Mr Lilley also, we note, did concede that it did not look good on this occasion.

We are satisfied that the whip was used on 15 occasions, without respite and with excessive force.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

Mrs Williams said that she believed that there were three more meetings at which a race for amateur drivers was to be held between today and the end of the season. She submitted that an appropriate penalty would be a suspension until the end of the current racing season.

Mr Lilley submitted that such a penalty would be very harsh. He said that, even as an Open Driver, he had not been charged with excessive use of the whip. The horse had not been “knocked about” and he had desisted when the horse came to the end of its run. He submitted that a warning would have been appropriate. He submitted that, if a suspension was called for, a 1 day’s suspension was appropriate.

REASONS:

The Committee was satisfied that a term of suspension was an appropriate penalty in the circumstances of the case. The maximum penalty that could be imposed by way of a suspension was a suspension to the end of the current season. Anything less than that would be an inadequate penalty for the particular breach.

PENALTY:

Mr Lilley’s Advanced Amateur Driver’s Licence was suspended from after the close of racing on this raceday up to an including 31 July 2010 which period will encompass, we believe, a maximum of 3 race drives for Mr Lilley.

R G McKenzie                  S C Ching

Chairman                        Committee Member

68985

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(2)(a)

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: