Southland RC 18 November 2020 – R 7 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13589
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Southland RC - 18 November 2020
Meet Chair:
GHall
Race Date:
2020/11/18
Race Number:
R 7
Decision:
The charge of misconduct is therefore found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Lowry is fined the sum $500 and reminded of his professional obligations.
Facts:
The Informant alleged that Mr Lowry misconducted himself in that he struck his horse THE ACE with the whip behind the barriers in an unacceptable manner.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham demonstrated on the videos that the Respondent struck the horse once down the neck and then twice behind the saddle to the horse’s rump. He said THE ACE was not walking up to the barrier as the Respondent wanted it to do. The incident was evident on the Oncourse and Trackside footage although the latter cut away quickly.
Mr Lowry stated he was aware THE ACE was the favourite for the race and that the cameras would be focused on the horse. He acknowledged it was not a good look for the Industry. He explained that had done all the education of the horse, ridden it in trackwork, etc, and it would not walk up. He said he would accept a charge of improper use of the whip but emphasised the horse was misbehaving, and he did not think he was guilty of misconduct. He said the horse was reluctant to go near the stalls and he was doing his best to get it there and to give of its best in the race. He said the horse was well behaved after he had struck it.
Mr Lowry said that he had asked for help but had not received any. He believed the starter’s assistants were not focused on the job at hand. The crew was pre-occupied, and they were too casual. On reflection, he thought he probably should have got off the horse, but he said jockeys’ had been warned by the RIU not to get off horses as they needed to carry their full weight to the start, and he was concerned that he might face a charge for doing so. He had been wasting hard to make the weight and was frustrated that THE ACE was fractious and was throwing its head around. He said he had been hit in the face twice, although the videos did not show this.
Mr Oatham responded that the videos did show that THE ACE was throwing its head but there was nothing that justified the Respondent’s extreme acts. The use of the whip in this fashion was unacceptable. He added that a jockey was able to get off a horse if in difficulty and could also obtain the starter’s permission to do so. The starter was not aware of the Respondent seeking any assistance.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr Lowry’s mount THE ACE was fractious prior to the start. Mr Lowry on three occasions has used the whip to get the horse to walk up, once to the neck and then twice behind the saddle. The videos evidence the horse throwing its head around. It is not evident on the videos that the Respondent was hit in the face, but even were this the case, it does not justify the use of the whip in this manner.
Mr Lowry has acknowledged he had been wasting hard to ride on the day and that he had become frustrated. The barrier attendants were not assisting him despite his asking for help. It is apparent they were not aware that he needed assistance. The other option, as Mr Lowry now recognises, was for him to dismount. He chose not to do so. To compound matters, the incident was televised both Oncourse and on Trackside. The animal welfare concerns are obvious and, as Mr Lowry immediately acknowledged, his actions portrayed the Industry in a poor light.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Lowry’s record which showed that the Respondent had a previous breach of this Rule in January of this year at Wingatui. This was described as a strong aggravating feature. He said the Respondent had lost his temper on both occasions. Fractious horses were not that uncommon an occurrence; and Mr Lowry’s response was an animal welfare issue. Mr Oatham did not believe a suspension was appropriate and sought a fine of $500 to $1,000.
Mr Lowry reiterated that his reaction with respect to the earlier breach was a spur of the moment response when he was in pain, due to the actions of his mount in the stalls. He believed there were mitigating factors in this instance as well, although he again acknowledged his actions did not look good. He had been hit in the face. He had been wasting and was frustrated by the actions of the horse as he wanted it to give its best. It was the favourite for the race, and he wanted to give it every chance to get to the barrier.
Reasons for Penalty:
Mr Lowry has reacted in an unacceptable manner to THE ACE being fractious and throwing its head. He has a previous charge under the Rule in similar but not identical circumstances. On that occasion he was fined $350 when he slapped his horse on the side of its head after it became fractious and his foot was trapped against the stall.
Mr Lowry is very remorseful for his actions.
Animal welfare considerations and the integrity of the Industry require that a substantial monetary penalty be imposed.
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: 4a45cc424dc01774d666353f47dfdf94
informantnumber: A11961
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Misconduct
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 22/11/2020
hearing_title: Southland RC 18 November 2020 - R 7 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
The Informant alleged that Mr Lowry misconducted himself in that he struck his horse THE ACE with the whip behind the barriers in an unacceptable manner.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham demonstrated on the videos that the Respondent struck the horse once down the neck and then twice behind the saddle to the horse’s rump. He said THE ACE was not walking up to the barrier as the Respondent wanted it to do. The incident was evident on the Oncourse and Trackside footage although the latter cut away quickly.
Mr Lowry stated he was aware THE ACE was the favourite for the race and that the cameras would be focused on the horse. He acknowledged it was not a good look for the Industry. He explained that had done all the education of the horse, ridden it in trackwork, etc, and it would not walk up. He said he would accept a charge of improper use of the whip but emphasised the horse was misbehaving, and he did not think he was guilty of misconduct. He said the horse was reluctant to go near the stalls and he was doing his best to get it there and to give of its best in the race. He said the horse was well behaved after he had struck it.
Mr Lowry said that he had asked for help but had not received any. He believed the starter’s assistants were not focused on the job at hand. The crew was pre-occupied, and they were too casual. On reflection, he thought he probably should have got off the horse, but he said jockeys’ had been warned by the RIU not to get off horses as they needed to carry their full weight to the start, and he was concerned that he might face a charge for doing so. He had been wasting hard to make the weight and was frustrated that THE ACE was fractious and was throwing its head around. He said he had been hit in the face twice, although the videos did not show this.
Mr Oatham responded that the videos did show that THE ACE was throwing its head but there was nothing that justified the Respondent’s extreme acts. The use of the whip in this fashion was unacceptable. He added that a jockey was able to get off a horse if in difficulty and could also obtain the starter’s permission to do so. The starter was not aware of the Respondent seeking any assistance.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr Lowry’s mount THE ACE was fractious prior to the start. Mr Lowry on three occasions has used the whip to get the horse to walk up, once to the neck and then twice behind the saddle. The videos evidence the horse throwing its head around. It is not evident on the videos that the Respondent was hit in the face, but even were this the case, it does not justify the use of the whip in this manner.
Mr Lowry has acknowledged he had been wasting hard to ride on the day and that he had become frustrated. The barrier attendants were not assisting him despite his asking for help. It is apparent they were not aware that he needed assistance. The other option, as Mr Lowry now recognises, was for him to dismount. He chose not to do so. To compound matters, the incident was televised both Oncourse and on Trackside. The animal welfare concerns are obvious and, as Mr Lowry immediately acknowledged, his actions portrayed the Industry in a poor light.
Decision:
The charge of misconduct is therefore found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham produced Mr Lowry’s record which showed that the Respondent had a previous breach of this Rule in January of this year at Wingatui. This was described as a strong aggravating feature. He said the Respondent had lost his temper on both occasions. Fractious horses were not that uncommon an occurrence; and Mr Lowry’s response was an animal welfare issue. Mr Oatham did not believe a suspension was appropriate and sought a fine of $500 to $1,000.
Mr Lowry reiterated that his reaction with respect to the earlier breach was a spur of the moment response when he was in pain, due to the actions of his mount in the stalls. He believed there were mitigating factors in this instance as well, although he again acknowledged his actions did not look good. He had been hit in the face. He had been wasting and was frustrated by the actions of the horse as he wanted it to give its best. It was the favourite for the race, and he wanted to give it every chance to get to the barrier.
reasonsforpenalty:
Mr Lowry has reacted in an unacceptable manner to THE ACE being fractious and throwing its head. He has a previous charge under the Rule in similar but not identical circumstances. On that occasion he was fined $350 when he slapped his horse on the side of its head after it became fractious and his foot was trapped against the stall.
Mr Lowry is very remorseful for his actions.
Animal welfare considerations and the integrity of the Industry require that a substantial monetary penalty be imposed.
penalty:
Mr Lowry is fined the sum $500 and reminded of his professional obligations.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 340
Informant: Mr J Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr J Lowry - Class A Jockey
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e8513c79ec1714e5eea6f84eb6fa068c
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 7
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 571271f40011a2cc14a48279836441cd
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 18/11/2020
meet_title: Southland RC - 18 November 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: southland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Southland RC