You are here: Home / Race Days / Nelson HRC - 10 January 2021 / Nelson HRC 10 January 2021 - R 5 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Nelson HRC 10 January 2021 - R 5 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 11 January 2021

SChing (chair)
R Jenkins-Licensed Open Driver
S Renault- Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
Breach of Rule 869(2)

Following the running of Race 5, the Hotel Motueka Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault against Licensed Open Driver, Mr R Jenkins alleging a breach of Rule 869(2) in that he used his whip with more than a wrist flicking motion in the home straight.

Rule 869(2) reads as follows:

869 (2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.

Relevant Part of the Whip & Rein Regulations as follows:



3.1 A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist only flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointed forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder.

3.2 For the purposes of clause 3.1, “wrist only flicking motion” means:

3.2.1 Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the whip.

3.2.2 The forearm is not raised beyond forty-five degrees relative to the racing surface.

3.2.3 Not applying the whip with overt force.

3.3 A driver shall not use a whip in an unapproved manner.

3.4 For the purposes clause 3.3 a driver shall be deemed to have used the whip in an unapproved manner in the following circumstances which are not exclusive:

3.4.1 If the whip is applied other than as permitted in clause 3.1.

3.4.2 If the whip is applied excessively, continuously, or without allowing the horse time to respond.

3.4.3 If the whip is applied when the horse: is not visibly responding. is not in contention. cannot maintain or improve its position. is clearly winning. has passed the winning post at the finish of a race.

3.4.4 If the whip is used when the reins are lengthened so as to result in loose reining.

3.4.5 If the whip is used in a prodding or jabbing fashion.

3.5 A driver must not use the whip in a manner which causes injury to a horse.

3.6 A whip shall not be used in a manner that may obstruct, strike or endanger another driver or horse.

3.7 A driver must ensure a whip does not project outside his or her sulky.

Mr Jenkins had endorsed the Information that the breach was admitted which he confirmed at the hearing. Mr Jenkins also acknowledged that he understood the provisions of the charge and the rule it was brought under.

Mr Renault gave evidence and showed video replays of the run home. He pointed out Mr Jenkins, driving CHARNUI, positioned wide and midfield as the field turned for home. Mr Renault demonstrated on the video replays; Mr Jenkins use his whip in more than a wrist flicking motion on 9 to 10 occasions over 150m before reverting back to a compliant style of driving.

Mr Jenkins stated that he thought he was using a compliant style of driving but appreciated now that it was not an acceptable style of whip use.


As Mr Jenkins had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Renault stated that Mr Jenkins' driving statistics showed 25 drives so far this season with 22 drives recorded for last season. He added that Mr Jenkins had a clear record and had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. Mr Renault stated that this breach was mid-range with the JCA penalty Guide providing a 2-day suspension or a $500 fine for a mid-level breach of this rule. He added that as Mr Jenkins drove infrequently a fine of $500 as per the Penalty Guide be considered as penalty.

Mr Jenkins submitted that a fine of $500 was excessive and requested a suspension be imposed.

Reasons For Penalty:

The JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point of a 2-day suspension or a $500 fine, mitigation inclusive, on the New Whip and Rein Regulation for a first offence of this rule. The Committee deemed that this breach was mid-level and considered there were no aggravating factors to consider. We considered Mr Jenkins' request for a suspension but rejected his submission as it would have been challenging to quantify a meaningful penalty due to the number of drives he has. It was therefore determined that a fine of $500, as per the Penalty Guide, was an appropriate penalty in this case.


Accordingly, Mr Jenkins is fined the sum of $500.

Document Actions