Reading the latest NHA calendar makes one more puzzled than ever as to the levying of penalties for offences and how they are structured and implemented.
There are such a wide variety of different natured offences and penalties. While it is a tricky exercise, surely they should make some sense in relation to each other and reflect the priorities?
The NHA’s guidelines stipulate that when determining whether an offence is a second or further offence the period stipulated under “Period for Consideration” shall apply, with the relevant date being the date on which a finding of the contravention was first made.
They add that, however, without derogating from the above purpose, this document (that published on their website) shall not limit the discretion of a board in imposing a penalty and under circumstances, which it deems exceptional, the board shall be entitled to deviate from the penalty range below.
Any penalties imposed regarding Rules which are not stipulated below shall remain at the discretion of the relevant Board.
The section pertaining to 58.10.2 (crop/whip) is not clear.
In the latest calendar, a jockey uses a person to act as his agent when that person wasn’t registered as his agent. The jockey gets fined R2500.
Three days later, the same jockey boots home a longshot winner after using his crop more than twelve times and gets fined R1000. Different offence – but the fines surely seem out of kilter with each other?
In another instance a jockey is fined R1500 for exceeding the twelve strike rule in June and then three weeks later gets R1000 for the same contravention. The same jockey has contravened the crop strike rule previously.
So what happened to history – as in the Keanen Steyn case – or are there levels of excessive use?
We really don’t know.
