RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: N R Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: M J Stratford

Information No: 68070

Meeting: Rangiora Harness Racing Club

Date: 15 June 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway

Race: 8

Rule No: 869 (2) (a)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – P J Rosanowski, Committee Member

Plea: Admitted

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 M J Stratford, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (2) (a) in that Mr Stratford, as the driver of ISABELLA GAYLENE in the race, “used the whip excessively in the run home”.

The information was filed on the raceday and was served on Mr Stratford at the meeting of Ashburton Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on 25 June 2010. The information was heard at that meeting. The information was amended to show Mr Escott as the Informant.

Mr Stratford was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he admitted 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.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Escott informed the Committee that the Stewards believed that Mr Stratford had used his whip excessively on ISABELLA GAYLENE in Race 8. He pointed out, on a video replay, Mr Stratford easing out from the trail approaching the home turn. Mr Escott alleged that Mr Stratford used his whip approximately 20 times inside the final 200 metres. The Committee noted that ISABELLA GAYLENE finished in 4^th placing.

Mr Stratford admitted that he had used the whip on 18-20 occasions and that it was excessive. He said that he was affected by “the heat of the moment”. He admitted that he had hit the horse continuously, had a “brief stop” and then hit it again. Over the final 50 metres, he only flicked it with the reins, he said.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSION(S) ON PENALTY:

Mr Escott informed the Committee that this breach was Mr Stratford’s third breach of the whip Rule – on 26.5.09 he had been fined $250 and on 21.7.09 he had been fined the sum of $350.

Mr Escott submitted that, taking into account Mr Stratford’s admission of the breach and his record, an appropriate penalty was a suspension for the balance of the current season and a fine of $250.

Mr Stratford said that it was his understanding that a driver’s record was expunged after the expiration of 12 months. He also submitted that he was one of the more successful amateur drivers in the Canterbury area, being second on the table of the number of wins. He said that he drives every Saturday and in most totalisator races. He sought a deferment of any suspension to enable him to drive in the amateur drivers’ race on 6 July. A deferment was strongly opposed by Mr Escott.

REASONS:

The Committee was satisfied that a term of suspension and a fine 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. The Committee was mindful of the penalties given to the three other amateur drivers dealt with following the same race. Having regard to Mr Stratford’s previous record of breaches of the whip Rule, a fine of $250 as submitted by Mr Escott, in addition to the suspension, was appropriate. However, the Committee gave Mr Stratford a discounted fine in recognition of his frank admission of the breach.

Mr Stratford had submitted that his breach in May 2009 should not be taken into account, as it was more than 12 months ago. While there may a practice for Judicial Committees to not go back further than 12 months in considering a driver’s record, there is nothing to prevent a Committee’s doing so. In the case of a professional horseman, he may have several hundred drives in a 12 months’ period. In the case of  amateur drivers, given their limited opportunities, a driver may have perhaps no more than 10 or 12 drives in a 12 months’ period. The Committee believes that it is  appropriate to look back further than 12 months in those circumstances. Accordingly, the Committee rejected Mr Stratford’s submission.

PENALTY:

Mr Stratford’s Advanced Amateur Driver’s Licence was suspended from after 25 June 2010 up to an including 31 July 2010 which period will encompass, we believe, a maximum of 3 race drives for Mr Stratford. Mr Stratford’s application for a deferment of the suspension was refused.

In addition, he was fined the sum of $250.

R G McKenzie                  P J Rosanowski

Chairman                        Committee Member

68070