Marlborough HRC 21 January 2024 – R4 – Trevor Walsh

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 4, the Respondent, Open Driver Trevor Walsh admitted a breach of Whip Rule 869(2).  The particulars of the charge are that when driving SARASOTA SUNSET, he used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the run home. 

(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.

Stipendiary Steward Matt Sole used available video footage to demonstrate the breach. He pointed out Mr Walsh driving SARASOTA SUNSET, racing midtrack and midfield after the field turned for home. Mr Sole showed that Mr Walsh, shortly after the field turned for home, drew his whip using it on 5-6 occasions . He added that Mr Walsh promptly returned back to a compliant style of whip use for the remainder of the race.

Mr Walsh elected to make no submissions in regard to the breach. 

Decision:

The charge is admitted and therefore proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Sole produced the Respondent’s record which was clear. He added that Mr Walsh was warned for using his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion at Nelson on 14 January 2024.

Mr Sole said that Stewards assessed the breach to be low to mid-level. He stated that Mr Walsh drove infrequently and a suspension would be hard to quantify. Mr Walsh’s statistics showed 2 drives last season, 7 drives to date this season and lifetime drives – 1200. Mr Sole said the Penalty Guide provided for a low-range breach – $300 fine or 2 day suspension with a mid-range breach – $500 fine or 2 day suspension. He stated that he would leave it up to the Adjudicative Committee as to the type and level of penalty.

Mr Walsh acknowledged that it would be difficult to assess a meaningful penalty and accepted that a fine was more appropriate.

Reasons for Penalty:

After consideration of the evidence from all parties concerned and viewing the race films of the concluding stages of the race, the Adjudicative Committee also assessed the breach as low to mid-level.

The Penalty Guide provides a 2-day suspension or $300 fine starting point for a low-level breach and a $500 fine or 2 day suspension for a mid-range breach. It was determined that a fine was appropriate in this case and accordingly, a starting point of $400 was adopted.

It was determined that there were no aggravating factors to consider, therefore no uplift was warranted.

There were however, mitigating factors, being Mr Walsh’s frank admission of the breach and his clear record, warranting a combined discount. This discount was set at $100.

Conclusion:

The Respondent is fined the sum of $300.