You are here: Home / Race Days / Banks Peninsula TC - 1 October 2017 / Banks Peninsula TC 1 October 2017 - R 2 - Chair, Mr G Clapp

Banks Peninsula TC 1 October 2017 - R 2 - Chair, Mr G Clapp



869(2)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: S W Wallis -Stipendiary Steward

Respondent: R D Holmes-Open Horseman

Information Number: A09580

Meeting: Banks Peninsula Trotting Club

Date: 1 October 2017

Venue: Motukarara Racecourse, Motukarara

Race: 2

Rules: 869(2)

Judicial Committee: G J Clapp, Chairman - R G McKenzie, Panellist 

Plea: Admitted

Charge: Breach of Rule 869(2)-excessive use of the whip.

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 2 Jean Anderson Memorial Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S W Wallis against Open Horseman Mr R D Holmes, alleging a breach of Rule 869(2) in that he used his whip in a manner Stewards deemed to be excessive.

Rule 869(2) reads as follows:

(2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of Whip Regulations made by the Board.

Use of the Whip Guidelines provides:

-The whip shall not be used more than 10 times in the last 400m of a race, otherwise this will be deemed excessive use pursuant to these guidelines.

Mr Holmes had endorsed the information that the breach was admitted. Mr Holmes had informed the Stewards that he did not wish to be present at the hearing which was confirmed by Mr Wallis.

Submissions For Decision:

Mr Wallis gave evidence and showed video replays of the run home. He had Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Ydgren point out Mr Holmes and his horse SOUTHERN ALPS. They were four back on the rail and on the turn for home Mr Holmes moved SOUTHERN ALPS to the middle of the track. Inside the final 400 m Mr Holmes activated removable gear. Approaching the 300m Mr Holmes drew the whip and used it on 12 occasions over the final stages which was clearly in excess of the whip guideline maximum 10 strikes. He also said that the strikes were free of the rein.

Reasons For Decision:

As Mr Holmes had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).

Decision:

The charge was found to be proved.

Submissions on Penalty:

Mr Wallis stated that Mr Holmes had no a previous breach of this rule within the past 6 months. He said that Mr Holmes was a busy driver and had driven in 45 races this season and 356 drives last season. He said Mr Holmes had readily admitted the breach, that the level of the breach was low and his record relatively good. Mr Wallis submitted that a fine of $300 be considered as penalty in this case.

Reasons For Penalty:

The JCA Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a $500 fine or a 2-drive suspension for a mid-range breach of this rule. After consideration, we determined that a fine was an appropriate penalty. The Committee assessed this breach as low level and therefore adopted a $400 fine as a starting point. There were no aggravating factors to consider so therefore no uplift in penalty was deemed necessary. In mitigation, we were able to afford Mr Holmes a discount for his admission of the breach and his relatively good record. This we set at $100. We therefore determined that a $300 fine was an appropriate penalty in this case.

Penalty:

Accordingly, Mr Holmes was fined the sum of $300.

Document Actions