Hororata TC 12 February 2023 – R2 – Colin DeFilippi

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 2, “Buy Kiwi Made” at Wai-Eyre – Trevor Beaton Memorial Mobile Pace, the Respondent Driver, Colin DeFilippi, as the Driver of LADY VINCENT in the race, denied a charge of using his whip in more than wrist flicking motion in the run home.

Rule 869 provides:

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

The Whip and Rein Regulations provide:

3.1  A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist only flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder.

3.2   For the purposes of Clause 3.1, “wrist only flicking motion” means:

3.2.1   Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip.

3.2.2.  The forearm is not raised beyond forty-five degrees relative to the racing surface.

3.3.3   Not applying the whip with overt force.

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, showed video replays of the final 350 metres of the race. He pointed out LADY VINCENT, driven by the Respondent, being eased out from the one-one position as the field entered the home straight. Entering the home straight, the Respondent activated gear early in the run home at about the 300 metres, and commenced to use his whip, doing so in more than a wrist only flicking motion, on approximately three occasions, Mr Williams alleged.

The Respondent disputed that he had used more than a wrist only flicking motion, other than for one strike. He submitted that he holds his hands higher, and has not raised his forearm more than 30 degrees, he submitted.

The definition of “wrist only flicking motion” (see above) was read to the hearing.

Mr Renault said that Stewards were alleging that there were three strikes involving more than a wrist only flicking motion. The three strikes involved two strikes that were “sideways”, but nevertheless more than a flicking motion, he said.

DECISION:

The charge is dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Respondent has been charged with using his whip in more than a wrist only flicking motion in the run home, and the Stewards have alleged three non-compliant strikes.

It is necessary to look at the definition of “more than wrist only flicking motion” as defined in the Regulation. It contains three elements and considering those in this case, the Adjudicative Committee finds:

• There was no force generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder;
• The forearm was not raised beyond 45 degrees, except perhaps in the case of one strike; and
• The whip was not applied with overt force.

Having made those findings, the Adjudicative Committee cannot be satisfied that the Respondent has used his whip in more than a wrist only flicking motion as alleged and, accordingly, the charge is dismissed.