Waikato BOP H 22 May 2025 – R5 – Crystal Hackett

Summary of Facts:

Following the running of Race 5, the Respondent C Hackett defended a breach of Whip Rule 869(2).  The particulars of the charge are that she used her whip in a continuous manner rounding the home bend and into the final straight.

Ms Hackett was supported by Mr P Ferguson.

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.

Stipendiary Steward S Renault used available video footage to demonstrate the breach. He said that Ms Hackett used her whip in both the forehand and back hand continuously from the 400m. He said the Stewards could not see any discernible pause. He said the driver had an obligation to give the horse an opportunity to respond to the whip by pausing in their application but Ms Hacket did not do so.

In response, Ms Hacket said that she believed she had implemented multiple pauses. When Ms Hackett was asked by the Committee to illustrate this on the video she didn’t refer to the video images instead saying  that while using the whip in the backhand position she wasn’t necessarily making contact with the horse and was more using her reins. She said the only time she was striking her horse was when the whip was in the forehand position and was encouraging the horse with her reins when the Stewards were alleging she was using the whip in the backhand position.

Upon viewing the head on film that Stewards identified where Ms Hackett had used the whip on the horse in the backhand position.

Mr Ferguson illustrated to the Committee where the whip wasn’t used in the backhand position and said a lot of the time the whip was moving around but wasn’t striking the horse.

Decision:

The charge was found proved.

Reasons for Decision:

The Adjudicative Committee took the opportunity to view the film independently, viewing both the head on and race films. It was clear to the Adjudicative Committee that Ms Hackett was driving her horse with enthusiasm from the 400m mark. It was difficult to identify any pauses of the whip and although there was no force generated, this is not a requisite in upholding the charge. The Adjudicative Committee rejects Ms Hackett’s suggestion that she was not applying the whip to the horse in the backhand position and identified numerous occasions where this was the case. Having considered the video evidence, the Adjudicative Committee was of the opinion that the Stewards had proven the charge to the requisite standard (on the balance of probabilities) in that Ms Hackett had used her whip in a continuous manner.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Renault produced Ms Hackett’s record, which was clear.

Mr Renault said that Stewards assessed the breach to be mid range and submitted that it be dealt with by way of a 2 day suspension or a $500 fine.

The Respondent submitted that she would prefer a suspension and would seek a deferment until after racing on the 30th of May.

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 assessed the breach as mid range. The mid range assessment was preferred, due to the distance over which the breach occurred, ie 400m.

Having considered all factors, the Adjudicative Committee deemed a 2 day suspension to be an appropriate penalty.

Conclusion:

The Respondent is granted a deferment and is suspended for a period of 2 days, commencing after racing on the 30th of May and concluding after racing on the 6th of June 2025.

The Racedays included in the suspension are;

5th June – Cambridge

6th June – Auckland