Timaru HRC – 10 May 2009 – Race 4
ID: JCA21211
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Timaru HRC - 10 May 2009
Race Date:
2009/05/10
Race Number:
Race 4
Decision:
Following the running of Race 4, the Norfolk Motors Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre, against Mr K. L. Williams the driver of “Danae” (10) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that K. L. Williams as the driver of Danae used his whip excessively in the run home.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
Following the running of Race 4, the Norfolk Motors Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre, against Mr K. L. Williams the driver of “Danae” (10) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that K. L. Williams as the driver of Danae used his whip excessively in the run home.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
Mr Williams had indicated on the information that he did not admit this
breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Williams also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge, and also that he was familiar with the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
Mr McIntyre gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Williams had used his whip on about 25 occasions in the run home.
--Mr Williams gave evidence and said that it was his belief that to be in breach of this Rule “use of the whip” needed to be more than a “minimal tap”. Mr Williams emphasised that he did not “whack” his horse, and that anyone watching the race would not consider he had used the whip excessively.
--There was a considerable amount of discussion and the “Use of the Whip” guidelines were referred to in some detail during these discussions. It was clear that Mr Williams believed that he had not used his whip excessively because of the way in which he used the whip. The “Use of the Whip” guidelines provide as follows.
--“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.
Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.
A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.
Unnecessary use of the whip includes –
i) Striking an obviously beaten runner
ii) Using whip after the winning post
Improper use of the whip includes –
i) Using the whip as a prod
ii) Using the whip butt end up
iii) Using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts
Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2) no horseman shall use the whip
continuously at any time during a race and there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or the use of the whip shall be interrupted by alternative acceptable actions.
These actions include:-
- Running the rein(s) over the horse’s rump
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump
- Running the whip through the horse’s tail”
After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that Mr Williams’ use of the whip was almost continuous from the time that he commenced using it. There were no “distinct pauses” and there were no alternative acceptable actions used. Although Mr Williams argued that his use of the whip was mainly a “tap” rather than a “whack”, the number of times he used it (about 25) was quite high.
We were also satisfied that the “Use of the Whip” guidelines are quite clear in that it is the number of times the whip is used, and/or the force of that use that amounts to a breach of the Rule. It is also clear that it is irrelevant whether the whip is used on the horse, harness or sulky. In the present case Mr Williams has used the whip on his horse on about 25 occasions, and this is excessive. We were satisfied that the charge had been proved.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be prepared later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Williams used his whip on about 25 occasions in the run home. The Stipendiary Stewards’ case is that this was excessive.
--Mr Williams disputed this, and said that the use of the whip was “minimal taps” rather than “whacks”. Mr Williams did agree that he was familiar with the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
--We are satisfied that these guidelines have been breached in this case because of the number of strikes with the whip and this was too much. We find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr McIntyre advised that Mr Williams is a senior Horseman and has no relevant previous convictions. A fine of $200-00 was recommended.
--Mr Williams had no relevant submissions to make in relation to penalty.
--
We were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case and accordingly Mr Williams was fined $200-00.
J. M. Phelan
Chair
67618
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: 7c17e2b2dec1ad0b66129bc2783dcdbd
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 10/05/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Timaru HRC - 10 May 2009 - Race 4
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 4, the Norfolk Motors Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre, against Mr K. L. Williams the driver of “Danae” (10) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that K. L. Williams as the driver of Danae used his whip excessively in the run home.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
Following the running of Race 4, the Norfolk Motors Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr N. G. McIntyre, against Mr K. L. Williams the driver of “Danae” (10) alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a). The charge reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that K. L. Williams as the driver of Danae used his whip excessively in the run home.”
--Rule 869(2)(a) reads as follows.
--“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-
(a) use his whip in an unnecessary, excessive or improper manner.”
Mr Williams had indicated on the information that he did not admit this
breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Williams also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge, and also that he was familiar with the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
Mr McIntyre gave evidence and used video coverage to show that Mr Williams had used his whip on about 25 occasions in the run home.
--Mr Williams gave evidence and said that it was his belief that to be in breach of this Rule “use of the whip” needed to be more than a “minimal tap”. Mr Williams emphasised that he did not “whack” his horse, and that anyone watching the race would not consider he had used the whip excessively.
--There was a considerable amount of discussion and the “Use of the Whip” guidelines were referred to in some detail during these discussions. It was clear that Mr Williams believed that he had not used his whip excessively because of the way in which he used the whip. The “Use of the Whip” guidelines provide as follows.
--“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.
Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.
A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.
Unnecessary use of the whip includes –
i) Striking an obviously beaten runner
ii) Using whip after the winning post
Improper use of the whip includes –
i) Using the whip as a prod
ii) Using the whip butt end up
iii) Using the whip below the level of the sulky shafts
Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2) no horseman shall use the whip
continuously at any time during a race and there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or the use of the whip shall be interrupted by alternative acceptable actions.
These actions include:-
- Running the rein(s) over the horse’s rump
- Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump
- Running the whip through the horse’s tail”
After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision. We were satisfied that Mr Williams’ use of the whip was almost continuous from the time that he commenced using it. There were no “distinct pauses” and there were no alternative acceptable actions used. Although Mr Williams argued that his use of the whip was mainly a “tap” rather than a “whack”, the number of times he used it (about 25) was quite high.
We were also satisfied that the “Use of the Whip” guidelines are quite clear in that it is the number of times the whip is used, and/or the force of that use that amounts to a breach of the Rule. It is also clear that it is irrelevant whether the whip is used on the horse, harness or sulky. In the present case Mr Williams has used the whip on his horse on about 25 occasions, and this is excessive. We were satisfied that the charge had been proved.
--On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be prepared later, and we gave the following oral decision.
--“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Williams used his whip on about 25 occasions in the run home. The Stipendiary Stewards’ case is that this was excessive.
--Mr Williams disputed this, and said that the use of the whip was “minimal taps” rather than “whacks”. Mr Williams did agree that he was familiar with the “Use of the Whip” guidelines.
--We are satisfied that these guidelines have been breached in this case because of the number of strikes with the whip and this was too much. We find the charge proved.”
--Penalty:
--Mr McIntyre advised that Mr Williams is a senior Horseman and has no relevant previous convictions. A fine of $200-00 was recommended.
--Mr Williams had no relevant submissions to make in relation to penalty.
--
We were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case and accordingly Mr Williams was fined $200-00.
J. M. Phelan
Chair
67618
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: b998eba5608b2379fc976b2269332ffb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: Race 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: be9cdd37a3a9ee422aecddc7ab9083d4
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 10/05/2009
meet_title: Timaru HRC - 10 May 2009
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: timaru-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: Timaru HRC