Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 9 April 2022 – R4 – Terry Moseley
ID: RIB8485
Animal Name:
MISS TAVI
Code:
Thoroughbred
Race Date:
09/04/2022
Race Club:
Canterbury Jockey Club
Race Location:
Riccarton Park - 165 Racecourse Road, Christchurch,
Race Number:
R4
Hearing Date:
09/04/2022
Hearing Location:
Riccarton Racecourse, Christchurch.
Outcome: Proved
Penalty: Jockey Terry Moseley is fined $250
Evidence
Following the running of Race 4, the Respondent Mr Terry Moseley admitted a charge alleging use of whip above shoulder height over the concluding stages.
Rule 638(3)(f)(ii) provides that in a Flat Race a Rider must not:
(ii) use an action that raises the Rider’s arm above shoulder height.
Using the available race films, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr John Oatham demonstrated that the Respondent struck his mount 2 times above shoulder height over the concluding stages of the race.  Â
In response, the Respondent Mr Moseley said he was disappointed to be charged as he thought he had adapted well to the changes in the Whip Regulations.
Decision
As the Respondent Mr Moseley admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee finds the breach proved (Rule 915(1)(d) refers).
Submissions For Penalty
Mr Oatham produced the Respondent’s record which indicated a warning under the Rule on 21 December 2021 at Ashburton.
Stewards assessed the breach as low and submitted there was no Penalty Guide starting point for this Rule in the NZTR Revised Penalty Guide for improper whip use (as of 1 March 2022).
Mr Oatham said the Stewards could draw a comparison with the penalties for whip use before the 100 metres.
The Respondent Mr Moseley made no submissions on Penalty.
Reasons For Penalty
The Penalty Guide has no starting point for a breach of this Rule.
After considering the film evidence and the submissions and having due regard for the number of strikes and the status of the race, the Adjudicative Committee determined it was fair and reasonable to align a penalty with those of Rule 638(3)(g)(i) “using the whip more than 5 times prior to the 100m mark”.
On that basis, the Respondent is fined $250.
Conclusion
The Respondent is fined $250.
Decision Date: 09/04/2022
Publish Date: 11/04/2022