Rangiora HRC 8 July 2018 – R 6 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA13815
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 8 July 2018
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
HWeston
Race Date:
2018/07/08
Race Number:
R6
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Woodend Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr SP Renault, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr GD Smith, alleging that, as the driver of REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY in the race, he “used his whip on more occasions than permitted by the Use of Whip Regulations Clause (b)”.
Mr Smith had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he denied the breach. He was present at the hearing of the Information and confirmed that the breach was denied.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.
The Use of Whip Regulations (effective from 30 November 2017) provide:
(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.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Renault had Stipendiary Steward, Mr SW Wallis, point out REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY, driven by Smith, on video replays racing towards the rear of the field as the field approached the home turn. Mr Renault alleged that Stewards had counted approximately 13 times that Mr Smith had used his whip inside the final 400 metres, which included backhanders and with a forehand striking motion. After showing the video replays several times, Mr Renault reduced the alleged number of strikes to 12. Mr Renault stated that there were several backhanders included, but Stewards felt they were not of a “pushing motion” but were in a “striking motion”.
Mr Smith referred to the backhand strikes alleged by the Stewards and submitted that they were not strikes but rather pushes with the whip. He showed the video replays to the Committee and accepted that there were 10 strikes. He submitted that the second and third backhanders alleged by the Stewards were not strikes. He had run his whip through the horse’s tail to keep it going because it was a horse that very lazy and would pull up if the driver was taking no action. He pointed out the change in his arm action.
The hearing was adjourned at this point as the next race was about to start. The hearing resumed after Race 9. The Committee announced to the parties that it had found the video evidence to be rather unsatisfactory and inconclusive. The Committee told the hearing that it felt that the key to this charge was the alleged second and third backhand “strikes” after the initial backhand strike followed by what both parties agreed was a “push”. Were these two “strikes”, as alleged by the Stewards, or alternative actions as submitted by Mr Smith? The Committee called for further submissions from both parties in relation to this particular matter.
Mr Renault submitted that there had been only one push and that all other actions were in a striking motion to be included in the count for the purposes of Clause (b) of the Regulations. There were twelve strikes in total, Mr Renault submitted. Mr Renault referred to the wording in paragraph (b) of the Regulations (see above) and paragraph (c) – “a pushing motion through the horse’s tail” – as an acceptable alternative action.
Mr Smith repeated, referring to the replay, that it could be seen from his actions that he was not “striking” with his whip but “swishing his tail” rather than hitting the horse. He believed that he was breaking the strikes up as a driver was required to do.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee had carefully viewed the video replays – side-on, back straight and head-on – which were repeatedly shown to the hearing. We state at the outset that we considered the video replays, unfortunately, to be not conclusive of the matter before us. This made it difficult for us to determine the matter.
It had been agreed by the parties and accepted by the Committee that, in the home straight, there was one clear backhand strike followed by what was a clear push. It was what happened after those that the Committee had to determine – that is to say, were there two uses of the whip in a striking motion, as alleged by the Stewards, or were there two alternative actions in a pushing motion as submitted by Mr Smith? If the former, then the number of strikes totalled twelve and, therefore, amounted to a breach of the Regulations. If the latter, the number of strikes totalled only ten and, therefore, not a breach of the Regulations.
Of course, the onus is on the Stewards to show that the number of strikes exceeded ten and therefore breached the Regulations. The Committee had to be satisfied about that on a balance of probabilities. We needed to be more satisfied than not.
It was the decision of the Committee that, largely because of the lack of satisfactory video evidence, the Stewards had been unable to satisfy us to that standard that the number of strikes exceeded ten on this occasion. We were, in the end, not satisfied that the two actions in question were of a striking motion rather than by way of alternative actions.
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: 692eb901a348fe8523e4c847e8b0a6ad
informantnumber: A09967
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Excessive Use of the Whip
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 09/07/2018
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 8 July 2018 - R 6 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 6, Woodend Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr SP Renault, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr GD Smith, alleging that, as the driver of REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY in the race, he “used his whip on more occasions than permitted by the Use of Whip Regulations Clause (b)”.
Mr Smith had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he denied the breach. He was present at the hearing of the Information and confirmed that the breach was denied.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.
The Use of Whip Regulations (effective from 30 November 2017) provide:
(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.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Renault had Stipendiary Steward, Mr SW Wallis, point out REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY, driven by Smith, on video replays racing towards the rear of the field as the field approached the home turn. Mr Renault alleged that Stewards had counted approximately 13 times that Mr Smith had used his whip inside the final 400 metres, which included backhanders and with a forehand striking motion. After showing the video replays several times, Mr Renault reduced the alleged number of strikes to 12. Mr Renault stated that there were several backhanders included, but Stewards felt they were not of a “pushing motion” but were in a “striking motion”.
Mr Smith referred to the backhand strikes alleged by the Stewards and submitted that they were not strikes but rather pushes with the whip. He showed the video replays to the Committee and accepted that there were 10 strikes. He submitted that the second and third backhanders alleged by the Stewards were not strikes. He had run his whip through the horse’s tail to keep it going because it was a horse that very lazy and would pull up if the driver was taking no action. He pointed out the change in his arm action.
The hearing was adjourned at this point as the next race was about to start. The hearing resumed after Race 9. The Committee announced to the parties that it had found the video evidence to be rather unsatisfactory and inconclusive. The Committee told the hearing that it felt that the key to this charge was the alleged second and third backhand “strikes” after the initial backhand strike followed by what both parties agreed was a “push”. Were these two “strikes”, as alleged by the Stewards, or alternative actions as submitted by Mr Smith? The Committee called for further submissions from both parties in relation to this particular matter.
Mr Renault submitted that there had been only one push and that all other actions were in a striking motion to be included in the count for the purposes of Clause (b) of the Regulations. There were twelve strikes in total, Mr Renault submitted. Mr Renault referred to the wording in paragraph (b) of the Regulations (see above) and paragraph (c) – “a pushing motion through the horse’s tail” – as an acceptable alternative action.
Mr Smith repeated, referring to the replay, that it could be seen from his actions that he was not “striking” with his whip but “swishing his tail” rather than hitting the horse. He believed that he was breaking the strikes up as a driver was required to do.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee had carefully viewed the video replays – side-on, back straight and head-on – which were repeatedly shown to the hearing. We state at the outset that we considered the video replays, unfortunately, to be not conclusive of the matter before us. This made it difficult for us to determine the matter.
It had been agreed by the parties and accepted by the Committee that, in the home straight, there was one clear backhand strike followed by what was a clear push. It was what happened after those that the Committee had to determine – that is to say, were there two uses of the whip in a striking motion, as alleged by the Stewards, or were there two alternative actions in a pushing motion as submitted by Mr Smith? If the former, then the number of strikes totalled twelve and, therefore, amounted to a breach of the Regulations. If the latter, the number of strikes totalled only ten and, therefore, not a breach of the Regulations.
Of course, the onus is on the Stewards to show that the number of strikes exceeded ten and therefore breached the Regulations. The Committee had to be satisfied about that on a balance of probabilities. We needed to be more satisfied than not.
It was the decision of the Committee that, largely because of the lack of satisfactory video evidence, the Stewards had been unable to satisfy us to that standard that the number of strikes exceeded ten on this occasion. We were, in the end, not satisfied that the two actions in question were of a striking motion rather than by way of alternative actions.
Decision:
The charge was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(2) & Use of the Whip Regulations
Informant: Mr SP Renault - Stipendiay Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr GD Smith - Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: Mr SW Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 172ef06ad24258e25d51dad715bebd64
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R6
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 691e8c48430324e9ea0b7768303535e8
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 08/07/2018
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 8 July 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: HWeston
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC