You are here: Home / Race Days / NZ Metro TC - 31 July 2020 / NZ Metropolitan TC 31 July 2020 - R 2 - Chair, Mr S Ching

NZ Metropolitan TC 31 July 2020 - R 2 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 03 August 2020

SChing (chair)
Miss O Thornley - Licensed Junior Horsewoman
Mr M Purdon - Licensed Open Horseman assisting Miss Thornley
Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward
Information Number
Contravention of the Use of Whip Regulations

Following the running of Race 2, the Lamb and Hayward Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren against Licensed Junior Horsewoman, Miss O Thornley, alleging a breach of Rule 869(2) in that she used her whip on more occasions than permitted by Clause (b) of the Use of the Whip Regulations.

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.

Whip Regulation (b) reads as follows;
(b) No horseman is permitted to use their whip in a striking motion on more than ten occasions inside the final 400 metres. This is inclusive of “backhanders” and the use applies to the horse, harness and/or sulky.

Miss Thornley had endorsed the Information that the breach was admitted which she confirmed at the hearing. Miss Thornley also acknowledged that she understood the provisions of the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Miss Thornley was assisted at the hearing by Open Horseman, Mr M Purdon.

Mr Ydgren gave evidence and showed video replays of the run home. He pointed out Miss Thornley, driving SAMHARA, in the one-one position, passing the 400m. Inside the 400m Miss Thornley drew the whip and used it on 16 occasions prior to the finish line.

Miss Thornley and Mr Purdon did not dispute the number of strikes. Miss Thornley stated that that the rein was always in her whip hand when she was driving the horse out and that her action was more slapping of the reins than actual strikes. Miss Thornley and Mr Purdon did concede that it was the striking motion was the action that was counted to bring about a charge.


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

Submission For Penalty:

Mr Ydgren stated that Miss Thornley had a clear record in regard to this Rule and had in fact, had never been before a Judicial Committee for an offence. Mr Ydgren stated that the JCA Penalty Guide provides for a $300 fine on the sliding scale for a first offence breach of this Rule for 14-16 strikes. He submitted that a penalty in line with the sliding scale be considered as penalty.

Miss Thornley elected to make no submissions in regard to penalty.

Reasons For Penalty:

The JCA Penalty Guide provides a $300 fine, mitigation inclusive, on the sliding scale for a first offence of this Rule. We determined that there were no aggravating factors to consider, therefore no uplift in penalty warranted. We therefore determined that a fine of $300, as per the sliding scale for a mid-range breach, was an appropriate penalty in this case.


Accordingly, Miss Thornley is fined the sum of $300.

Document Actions