Kirstin Barclay Trial Number 2

[Happy Sunrise]

The second trial is also an interesting read. I think BOAY gets a mention in it too lol. Brodie should have been brought in as a star witness lol.

I have highlighted some key parts which show the true intent of the whip rule - all for public perception. So while I support the intent of the rule, what happens if a driver whacks the living shit of out of a horse 9 times while she hits the horse 11 times or is that 12 times?

I enjoyed the 'is not a good look' phrase. Try keeping consistency with that.

WYNDHAM HRC 17 NOVEMBER 2019 - R 8 (HEARD 22 NOVEMBER 2019 AT INVERCARGILL) - CHAIR, PROF G HALL

Races:

Rules:
869(2)and Use of the Whip Regulations

Background:

Information No: A9848

Meeting: Wyndham HRC (heard at Invercargill 22 November 2019)

Race: 8

Date: 17 November 2019 

Rules: 869(2) and Use of the Whip Regulations

Respondent: Ms K Barclay - Licensed Open Driver

Informant: Mr V Munro - Stipendiary Steward

Plea: Not Admitted

Charge: Contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations

Evidence

Stipendiary Steward, Mr Munro, alleged that Ms Barclay, the driver of SWAMP MAJOR in race 8 used her whip on more occasions than is permitted by the Use of the Whip regulations.

The whip regulation cl (b) provides that no horse(wo)man may use the whip in a striking motion on more than 10 occasions inside the final 400 metres. The “use applies to the horse, harness and/or sulky.”

Mr Munro alleged with reference to the race videos that the respondent, who was leading the field at the 400 metres, after straightening for the run home and just before the candy pole used her whip 12 times from that point until the winning post. SWAMP MAJOR won the race.

Mr Munro demonstrated on the side-on video that there were four strikes just after the home turn and he alleged there were two further sets of four strikes. His count was thus 12. He said the last set and some of the strikes in the previous set were with the whip being used incidental to the reins. He said the field was closing on Ms Barclay and she was getting urgent. He acknowledged that it was hard to see just where some of the strikes hit and he agreed that some were to the dust sheet. There were some where the whip did not touch the horse or the cart and these did not form part of the Stewards’ count.

Mr Munro also played the head-on video. This evidenced that the whip was being used in a downwards motion. He again acknowledged that the strikes were mixed with some that did not make contact. He said the perception, however, was that the respondent hit the horse the whole way up the straight. This was not a good look. He accepted many of the latter strikes were not to the horse but were to the sulky.

Ms Barclay stated that SWAMP MAJOR was stopping on her and she was keeping the horse going. She was mindful of using the stick, and the whip was in the air for some of the time when she was slapping the horse with the reins. She agreed there were clearly four to the horse on straightening. These strikes were intended; the rest of the time she was just slapping the horse with the reins. She was not intending to use the whip. She did not believe the last 2 strikes were to horse or cart but rather were in the gap between sheet and cart. She explained she had bought a new whip over Cup week and it is very flexible. It flicks and then pops back up. She believed she was simply throwing the reins at the horse at the end of the race. She disagreed with the Stewards that public perception was against her, saying there was a thread on the web and the four contributions all stated there was nothing wrong with the manner in which she had used the whip.

Decision

We have viewed the videos from a number of angles and at normal and slow speed. We have had the ability to zoom the picture and to view it on the monitor, which we found gave a clearer resolution than did the big screen. We are satisfied after repeated viewing that the number of strikes is 11. Many are not to the horse and, with some of the latter slapping of the reins with the whip in hand, there is not contact by the whip on horse or cart. As Ms Barclay alleges, the whip flicks in the gap between cart and dust sheet. But the 11 in our count are to the harness (gear), sulky or horse, as is provided in the rule. We add while public perception is relevant when having regard to the need to uphold the integrity of the industry when imposing penalty, we have determined that the charge is proved having regard only to the wording of the rule.

Submissions as to penalty

Mr Munro produced Ms Barclay’s record. Ms Barclay has had 3,230 lifetime drives — 37 this season and 112 last season. Her record is clear under this rule since 18 July last when she was suspended for 3 days. She had previously been fined $200 on 30 May. She has had 32 drives since her last breach.

Mr Munro submitted a 3-day suspension was appropriate. Ms Barclay said she thought this was excessive and did not seek a deferment.

Reasons for penalty

The breach is low-range. The Penalty Guide provides a starting point of 3 days for a second or subsequent breach. This is Ms Barclay’s third breach in a period of just under 6 months. The circumstances of the breach are a little unusual and we accept Ms Barclay has endeavoured to change her whip action in order not to fall foul of the rule. We see no need to increase or decrease the starting point.

Penalty

The suspension is one of 3 days. Ms Barclay is suspended from the end of racing today, 22 November, up to and including 6 December. This is 3 Otago / Southland days.

 

 

Document Actions

[Flagship uberalles]

..Not a good week for k.b,  brodster would have got her off if called up for the defence!

[the galah]

Makes an interesting read. I don't know what else she was expected to do in the circumstances as the race unfolded.

I don't think anyone who looked at her whip use would think it was excessive or unkind, but there is no discretion which can be used when it comes to charging drivers by those enforcing the rule.

I don't have a problem with the rule.

In this case I do believe some discretion could have been used as far as penalty goes. But then again, consistency in penalty is also important. 

Its just one of those subjects where occasionally you think the penalty is not deserved.. Its very unfortunate if you are the person concerned,and k Barclay must feel understandably frustrated. to say the least.  

But its a big picture subject, and the rule is needed in my opinion.

[Rangatira]

17 hours ago, Flagship uberalles said:

..Not a good week for k.b,  brodster would have got her off if called up for the defence!

probably overseas