Auckland TR 1 June 2024 – R4 – Jessica Allen

Evidence

Following the running of Race 4, the Respondent Jessica Allen (Apprentice Rider), chose to defend a charge alleging excessive whip use prior to the 100 metres.

Ms Allen was assisted by Senior Rider J Fawcett

Rule 638(3)(g)(i) provides that in a Flat Race a Rider must not:

(i) strike a horse with a whip more than 5 times prior to the 100-metre mark (other than in a slapping motion down the shoulder with the whip hand remaining on the reins);

Using the available race films, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham demonstrated that the Respondent struck her mount 8 times from the straight entrance to the 100-metre mark. He said that the first strike occurred around the horse’s shoulder or neck region and the Stewards did consider an alternative charge of striking a horse forward of the shoulder, however elected to proceed with an excessive whip use charge instead.

Mr Oatham said that there was some conjecture in relation to the first strike as to whether “Ms Allen did actually strike the horse”, but in the Stewards’ view, she did and identified the whip as being up and then down in a striking motion. Mr Oatham said that the Stewards believed the motion that Ms Allen used, must have resulted in contact to the horse. He added that whether this was the intent of Ms Allen (to strike the horse), the Stewards were unsure, however, in the Stewards’ opinion, contact was made.

Ms Allen said that she was learning how to use her whip proficiently. She said that this included swapping hands with the whip, and flicking up and forward to show the horse the whip before striking it. She said as a result of her learning this skill, she wasn’t very good at it.

Ms Fawcett said that Ms Allen had attempted to show the horse the whip, but had got a bit “fumbly”. She said, as a result, Ms Allen may have appeared to strike the horse, however she wasn’t trying to hit the horse and there was no intent to hit the horse. To illustrate this, Ms Fawcett said that there was a long pause between Ms Allen’s 7th strike and her 8th strike (as counted by the Stewards); this was due to the fact that Ms Allen did not believe she struck the horse on the first occasion (that Stewards identified) and she was counting her 6th and 7th strikes.

Reasons for Decision

The Adjudicative Committee took some time to view the films at normal and reduced speed. In analysing the films, it was apparent that Ms Allen raised her whip up and forward and then bought her hand down, with the whip making contact with the horse, in the shoulder area. It was the Adjudicative Committee’s view, that despite any contact being unintentional and lacking force, it still did occur and therefore the charge of excessive whip use was upheld.

Decision:

The charge was found proved.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Jones produced Ms Allen’s record, which identified 1 previous breach in the previous 6 months, which had occurred on the 9th of December 2023 (Ms Allen was 8 days short of having a clear record). He said that the Guidelines for a 2nd breach, 8 strikes, indicated a suspension of 5 days and the Stewards saw no reason to deviate from the Guidelines.

Reasons for Penalty

It is unusual for an Adjudicative Committee to reduce a whip related penalty from the Guidelines starting point. This only generally occurs if the Adjudicative Committee considers there to be exceptional or significant mitigating circumstances. When determining an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee does believe that on this occasion, the specific circumstances warrant a more thorough consideration of penalty, rather than just applying the Guideline standard.

It is clear that the whip action of Ms Allen involved in the first (contested) strike, is significantly different to every other strike and the Adjudicative Committee’s view was, it is more probable than not, that Ms Allen was attempting to show the horse the whip, but as a result of her inexperience, made very slight contact with the horse.

The Adjudicative Committee also had regard for the fact that Ms Allen only struck her mount 9 times in total and was 8 days short of a clear record.

Having considered all of the factors, it was the Adjudicative Committee’s position that a 5 day suspension would be an unduly harsh penalty and instead, issued a fine of $500 for the breach.

Conclusion

Ms Allen is fined $500.