NZ Metro TC 24 March 2023 – R7- Korbyn Newman

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 7, the Respondent Korbyn Newman admitted  a breach of Whip Rule 869(2).

The particulars of the charge are that when driving MIGHTY LOOEE, he used the whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the home straight.

Rule 869 provides that:

(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.

Regulation 3.1 reads as follows;

3. USE OF THE WHIP

 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.

Mr Newman was assisted at the preliminary hearing with the Stewards, by Driver Gavin Smith. Mr Newman stated that he was comfortable without assistance at the hearing.

Stipendiary Steward Shane Renault used available video footage to demonstrate the alleged breach. Mr Renault pointed out Mr Newman draw his whip and use it in more than a flicking motion on 4 to 5 occasions over the final stages in the run home.

The Respondent elected to make no submissions in regard to the breach.

Decision:

As Mr Newman admitted the breach, the charge is found proved.

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Renault stated that Mr Newman had received 2 warnings over the previous months but had a clear record in regard to this Rule. He stated that this breach was low level, with the Penalty Guide providing for a $300 fine or a 2 day suspension as penalty for a first breach. He submitted that a $300 fine be considered as penalty.

The Respondent submitted that a fine would be preferable.

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 agreed with the Stewards and assessed the breach as low level.

The Penalty Guide provides for a 1st offence, low-level breach of this Rule, a $300 fine or 2 day suspension, mitigation inclusive.

Having considered all factors, the Adjudicative Committee deemed a fine was an appropriate penalty in this case.

With consideration that this was Mr Newman’s first offence and that the breach was low level with no aggravating factors to consider, it was determined that a $300 fine, mitigation inclusive, was appropriate in this case.

Conclusion:

The Respondent is fined $300.