Waikato RC 6 May 2023 – R1- Stephan Karnicnik

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 1, the Harcourts Hamilton Rentals Hurdle, Mr Jones presented an Information charging Mr Karnicnik with failing to retire his mount HERE’S JOHNNY from the race when the horse was “out of contention”.

Rule  638(5)(b) provides:

A rider in a Jumping Race or Trial must retire his or her horse from a Race or Trial immediately if: 

(b) the horse is not in contention and/or is fatigued;. 

Using race film, Mr Jones identified the Respondent’s mount.  Entering the home straight, HERE’S JOHNNY is clearly detached from the body of the field. There were 3 hurdles to clear in the straight.  HERE’S JOHNNY is seen jumping the second to last fence, at which point, the second to last horse is approaching the last fence, a distance of approximately 100 metres. The horse was clearly out of contention.   The Respondent rode his mount out to the finish.

Decision:

As Mr Karnicnik admitted the charge, it was deemed proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Jones advised the Adjudicative Committee that Mr Karnicnik had received a previous sanction for a breach of this particular Rule, namely a warning on 18th June 2022, along with a fine of $500 imposed on 30th July 2022.  He recommended a fine in keeping with that imposed in July 2022, should be considered by the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Karnicnik did not offer penalty submission other than to comment that the horse was not tired.

Reasons for Penalty:

The pertinent Rule remains unambiguous in that a Jockey must retire his or her horse immediately if the horse is not in contention. Where difficulty does lie, is determining whether circumstances evident support an assertion that the horse is  “not in contention”. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that this is the case in respect of the Respondent’s mount – it is noted that the official margin back to HERE’S JOHNNY was 77.4 lengths.

Conclusion:

On balance, reflecting record, a fine of $500 is deemed appropriate.  Subsequent to the hearing, Mr Karnicnik asked that the Adjudicative Committee reconsiders penalty with a view to imposing a suspension of Licence, rather than a fine.  Given that the original penalty had been based upon due consideration, the Adjudicative Committee concluded a change was not warranted.