Waikato TR 13 April 2025 – R2 – Masa Hashizume

Introduction

Following the running of Race 2, Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr J Oatham filed an Information pursuant to Rule 800 against Class A Rider Mr M Hashizume.  The charge alleged that Mr Hashizume misconducted himself by striking his mount DUA DANCE with the whip several times prior to the start when loading into the gates. 

Mr Hashizume admitted the breach of the Rule.

Rule 800 provides that a Licensed Person…must not misconduct themselves in any matter relating to the conduct of races or racing. 

The NZTR Directive provides that the whip should not be used inappropriately on a horse at any time. And that…unnecessary or improper use …may be regard as misconduct under Rule 800 of the Rules. 

Evidence

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Oatham referred to the films, which showed the field being loaded into the barrier stalls.  He pointed out that DUA DANCE (M Hashizume) was fractious and reluctant to enter the barrier. Two Barrier Attendants tried to push the horse from behind and it remained defiant and kicked out.  Mr Hashizume tried to urge his mount forward, he passively patted the horse down the neck with an open hand.  However,  it became more fractious, resulting in him striking his horse three times with his whip.  The horse was still difficult to load, and Mr Hashizume took his feet out of the irons, gave his mount a “dig” and two more strikes.

Mr Oatham said that Stewards were not so concerned with the first three strikes, but the two strikes down the neck and the “dig” were of particular concerns.  He said those two strikes were reasonably aggressive.

In response, Mr Hashizume referred to the films where he said that initially he was only “tapping the horse down the neck”, which he said is what he normally does to calm his mount(s) in similar situations.  He said he was yelled at by the Barrier Attendants, who said to him, “don’t just sit there, kick him”.  Mr Hashizume said that he wanted to dismount from his horse at this stage.

With regards to his use of the whip, he said that “I didn’t hit the horse front of the shoulder, near the head or on the flank”.  He added that he thought that he could hit his mount when behind the barrier, to urge it into the stall.  Mr Hashizume also referred to an incident that occurred the previous day at the Riccarton Race Meeting, where he understood the Rider involved was not charged for a similar breach, and questioned why he was now being charged.

Decision

As Mr Hashizume admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Oatham said that Mr Hashizume has a clear record under the Rule, and he freely admitted the breach.  He said that the only comparable cases that Stewards could identify related to charges filed again Riders J Fawcett (December 2024) and L Hemi (January 2025) – both were fined $750.  He said these cases were slightly different because the Riders struck their mounts on the back of the neck and therefore were more serious than this breach.  He also referred to the J Lowry (2000) charge, which he said was more similar to this matter and resulted in a $500 fine.

Mr Oatham said that the social license for racing is always under scrutiny by various groups who monitor incidents such as this, and such incidents have an adverse effect on racing.  He also submitted that all Riders should be aware that they should not take matters into their own hands, and they should also be mindful of social media reaction to such breaches.  He suggested that a fine in the vicinity of $500 would be an appropriate penalty.

Mr Hashizume said that he was surprised that he had been charged with this breach, as he believed he was simply following instructions from the Barrier Staff.  But ultimately, he accepted his wrongdoing, hence his guilty plea.

Reasons for Penalty

Ms Hashizume admitted the charge of Misconduct, on the basis that he struck his mount when trying to load his horse into the barrier.

The Penalty Guide does not provide a suggested starting point.  On that basis, the penalty for such a breach of this nature is fact dependent.

The films clearly establish that Mr Hashizume’s mount, DUA DANCE, was fractious and difficult to load into the barrier. Two Barrier Attendants had to intervene and assist DUA DANCE into the barrier. It was noted that the first three strikes were passive and merely to coax DUA DANCE to enter the barrier. However, the latter two strikes with the whip were more forceful and of concern. Mr Oatham quite rightly pointed out that incidents such as this, do have an adverse effect on racing’s social license. Mr. Hashizume said that he was following instructions from the Barrier Staff, but that does not absolve him. He is responsible and accountable for his actions and cannot lay blame on the Barrier Staff.

Mr Hashizume’s culpability is slightly less than the two comparable cases of Ms Fawcett and Ms Hemi, which resulted in $750 fines.  On that basis, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a $650 starting point and applied a $100 reduction in recognition of Mr Hashizume’s good record and admission of the breach.

Conclusion

Mr Hashizume is fined $550.