Whangarei RC 18 December 2024 – R5 – Jasmine Fawcett

Introduction

Following the running of Race 5, Stipendiary Steward Mr A Dooley filed an Information pursuant to Rule 800 against Class A Rider Ms J Fawcett.  The charge alleged that Ms Fawcett struck her mount (HEART OF ALLADIN) on top of its neck when loaded in the barriers.

Ms Fawcett 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

Stipendiary Steward Mr Dooley referred to the back straight films, which showed the front of the barrier stalls.  The field was loaded in the stalls and ready to race.  He pointed out that HEART OF ALLADIN (J Fawcett) was in its barrier stall and was fractious.  It had previously reared, and a Barrier Attendant was deployed alongside to assist with settling the horse.  HEART OF ALLADIN reared, for a second time, and Ms Fawcett immediately reacted and with her whip struck her mount twice near the upper neck.

Ms Fawcett stated that her mount had already reared once prior to the incident that gave rise to the charge, and that is why a Barrier Attendant was alongside trying to settle the horse.  She said that her reaction, in striking the horse with her whip, was totally out of character.  She added that it was a hot day, and she had ridden 17 horses the previous day at the Trials, this perhaps may have affected her judgement.

Decision

As Ms Fawcett admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Dooley said that Ms Fawcett has a clear record under the Rule and freely admitted the breach.  He said that the only comparable cases that Stewards could identify related to charges filed again Riders M Du Plessis (2013) and Mr Goindasamy (2023). Mr Du Plessis kicked his horse and received a $500 fine.  Mr A Goindasamy received a $750 fine after he struck his mount’s head once with his whip, as a reaction to having his leg jammed whilst in the barrier.

Mr Dooley said that Ms Fawcett’s strikes were an overreaction to her mount rearing up.  With regards to the comparable cases, he said that animal welfare is now more prominent than it was in 2013, when Mr Du Plessis received his $500 fine.  He suggested that a fine in the vicinity of that imposed on Mr Goindasamy may be an appropriate penalty.

The films depicting the incident were not shown on Trackside.

Ms Fawcett advised that she was genuinely remorseful for striking her mount and reiterated that it was totally out of character for her to react as she did, to her horse rearing in its barrier stall.

Reasons for Penalty

Ms Fawcett admitted the charge of Misconduct, on the basis that she struck her mount in the neck twice, in quick succession, with her whip.

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.

Ms Fawcett reacted spontaneously after her mount reared in its barrier stall for the second time.  It is accepted that her mount was fractious, and it had previously reared, which prompted a Barrier Attendant to be positioned alongside the stall to help settle the horse.  At this point, after it reared, there was no justification or excuse for her to strike the horse, and it would have been more prudent of Ms Fawcett to let the horse settle.

On the basis of the available evidence, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a fine of $850 as the starting point.  This reflects the Adjudicative Committee’s assessment of circumstances of the breach and Ms Fawcett’s level of culpability.

Mitigating factors include Ms Fawcett’s admission of the breach, her clear record, the horse’s poor barrier manners and genuine remorse expressed by Ms Fawcett. Accordingly, in recognition of these factors, a $100 reduction is applied to the $850 starting point and a fine of $750 is imposed.

Ms Fawcett raised the fact that it was a very hot day, and she had ridden in 17 trial heats the previous day.  This workload may have affected her judgement on this occasion.  She is shortly to commence a period of suspension for a previous careless riding charge.  She is encouraged to use her time on suspension to freshen up, as temperatures will continue to rise, racing is now entering a very busy summer period and Rider’s workloads will increase.  It is therefore important that Riders maintain good decision making and judgement skills over this period.

Conclusion

Ms Fawcett is fined $750.