Debacle - SOUTH CANTERBURY RC 9 OCTOBER 2015 - R 2 (REQUEST FOR A RULING) - CHAIR, MR K HALES

[Guest 2Admin2]

SOUTH CANTERBURY RC 9 OCTOBER 2015 - R 2 (REQUEST FOR A RULING) - CHAIR, MR K HALES

Created on 12 October 2015

<< Prev

Next >>

 

Rules:

632 and 902(2)(a)(iii)

Committee:

KHales (chair) 
DAnderson 

 

Stipendiary Steward(s):

Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward

Name(s):

Information Number:

A5393 and A5394

Evidence:

Fourteen horses lined up for the “Central South Island Owner & Trainer Awards Maiden 1200”. When the starter released the barriers, six gates did not open leaving horses and riders trapped. The remaining eight horses jumped in unison. After approximately 9-10 seconds, the starter, Mr K Ogden, realised what had happened and signalled with his red flag to the track steward who in turn began to wave his flag to signal to the riders that there had been a false start. Regrettably, his efforts were to no avail as none of the riders picked up his signal, and continued on to race to the finishing post.

As a result, the Stipendiary Stewards filed two Informations requesting rulings pursuant to Rules 632 & 902(2)(a)(iii).

Those rules read as follows:
Rule 632
“If, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, a horse which does not finish in the first three placings was prevented from taking an effective part in a Race owing to the mechanical failure of the starting gates, or is denied a fair start and such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that horse (but not where the horse is slow away of its own accord) the Judicial Committee may declare such horse to be a non-starter”.

Rule 902
“(2) The functions of a Judicial Committee shall be:
(a) From the commencement of the first proceeding which it commences to deal with on any day of a Race Meeting or one hour prior to the starting time of the first race of that day until after the conclusion of the last proceeding which it commences to deal with on that day, or thirty minutes after the last Race run on that day (whichever is the later) to:
(iii) declare a race null and void and if it thinks expedient order that such race be run again:

Information A5394 reads as follows:

“To determine whether “Feel D’Cash, “Intense”, “Iona Castle”, “Hot Property”, “Velluto” and “Dollyaday” should be late scratched due to a gate malfunction”

Information A5393 reads as follows

“To determine whether Race 2 be declared null and void due to the malfunction of the gate.”

We elected to hear from three of the jockeys who rode their horses out to the conclusion of the race. Licensed Jockey, CW Johnson (who rode the winner of the race) said that he was unaware that a false start had been called until he pulled up at the end. Licensed Jockey, Mrs L Allpress (who was drawn 8 at the barrier) said she saw “out of the corner of her eye” that Licensed Jockey J Morris (drawn 7) was still in the barrier and as a consequence looked for the track steward’s signal (as she suspected a false start) but as he was walking away, she drew the conclusion that all was in order and raced on. Apprentice Jockey, D Prastiyou said that he did not become aware that a false start had been called until the end of the race.

Licensed Jockey, DG Bradley (who was the rider of “Iona Castle”) said from his position (in the starting gates) that he saw the track steward make a “token” movement with his flag as the other 8 runners went past him. Licensed Jockey, D Walsh (“Feel D’Cash”) said that as a false start had been declared by the starter that the race had to be declared null and void.

Mr K Ogden, the starter told the hearing that he acknowledged that he had been slow with his signal to the track steward.

We then heard from the trainers of five of the six horses and a part owner of the sixth that had been trapped in the starting gates. All six were of the view that the race should be declared null and void, because it had been declared a false start by the starter.

We then heard from a number of the trainers of the horses that ran the race. Those that we heard from, said that their jockeys had all rode the race out genuinely. Mr D Frye, who was authorised to speak on behalf of Mr N Coulbeck, the trainer of “No Retreat”, which finished 4th, reported that his jockey, (Ms S Wynne”) did not see the false start signal. The overall consensus among the trainers of the remaining horses that raced to the finish was that the race had been ridden out “genuinely by all of the eight riders concerned.

In summing up, Mr McLaughlin put it to us that the race should be declared null and void.

Submission For Decision:

We elected to hear from three of the jockeys who rode their horses out to the conclusion of the race. Licensed Jockey, CW Johnson (who rode the winner of the race) said that he was unaware that a false start had been called until he pulled up at the end. Licensed Jockey, Mrs L Allpress (who was drawn 8 at the barrier) said she saw “out of the corner of her eye” that Licensed Jockey, J Morris (drawn 7) was still in the barrier and as a consequence looked for the track steward’s signal (as she suspected a false start) but as he was walking away, she drew the conclusion that all was in order and raced on. Apprentice Jockey, D Prastiyou said that he did not become aware that a false start had been called until the end of the race.

Licensed Jockey, DG Bradley (who was the rider of “Iona Castle”) said from his position (in the starting gates) that he saw the track steward make a “token” movement with his flag as the other 8 runners went past him. Licensed Jockey, D Walsh (“Feel D’Cash”) said that as a false start had been declared by the starter that the race had to be declared null and void.

Mr K Ogden, the starter told the hearing that he acknowledged that he had been slow with his signal to the track steward.

We then heard from the trainers of five of the six horses and a part owner of the sixth that had been trapped in the starting gates. All six were of the view that the race should be declared null and void, because it had been declared a false start by the starter.

We then heard from a number of the trainers of the horses that ran the race. Those that we heard from, said that their jockeys had all rode the race out genuinely. Mr D Frye, who was authorised to speak on behalf of Mr N Coulbeck, the trainer of “No Retreat”, which finished 4th, reported that his jockey, (Ms S Wynne) did not see the false start signal. The overall consensus among the trainers of the remaining horses that raced to the finish was that the race had been ridden out “genuinely by all of the eight riders concerned.

In summing up, Mr McLaughlin put it to us that the race should be declared null and void.

Reasons For Decision:

The actions of the starter in signalling a false start were woeful. It took him 9-10 seconds to signal to the track steward. The horses that started were well past the starter before he signalled and indeed, by the time the remaining field was upon the track steward, all had set about the business of racing. The track steward’s actions were described by Licensed Jockey DG Bradley as “token” as the field went by, and the video coverage confirmed that the field was upon him by the time he waved his flag.

A good sample of evidence was taken from the riders who competed. What Mrs Allpress said was significant. She was expecting a false start but when she saw the track steward walking down the track, she raced on.

However, it is also significant that the video coverage of the field as it went by the track steward showed that not one of the riders reacted in any way to the track steward’s signal. Not one jockey reined back, looked back or stood up in the stirrups. Clearly, as a result of the lack of reaction from those riders, not one of them was aware that a false start had been declared.

This committee must therefore consider, in the first instance whether or not a false start was properly declared.

In order to consider this aspect we refer to Rule 631 (5). 
“The starter’s decision as whether or not a proper start has been effected and to any other matter in connection with the start shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, including where the Starter has by his actions declared a Race to be a false start.”

This committee is of the view, that it must be integral to this rule, that as to whether a proper start has been effected, must (in the case of a false start) be adequately conveyed to the those affected, that is to say that the false start declaration must be complete. Thus, in this case, because the field was well past the starter at the time he waived his flag and because the track steward had only just begun to signal as the field went by him, that the declaration of the false start was not conveyed to the riders affected. The remaining horses raced on in a “genuine” fashion, with no idea that a false start had been declared.

Cognisance must also be had to Rule 631 (6).

“Except as provided in Rules 628(1) and 631(4), where:

(c) any horse or horses is prevented by mechanical failure of the starting stalls from participating in the race,
the Judicial Committee shall have an absolute discretion to determine whether the Race shall be deemed to have been run or to be void, providing that in exercising such discretion the Judicial Committee shall have regard to:
(e) the interests of the public who have invested on that race….

In terms of considering the “absolute discretion” that we have we are mindful of a decision of the Appeal Judges in the case involving the 1996 Kurow Cup.

“Deciding how to exercise a discretion involves an intellectual process of weighing relevant factors, excluding irrelevant factors and reaching a rational conclusion capable of explanation with reasons. It requires qualities of sound judgement, wisdom and logic, as well as an instinct for fair play. Discretions are conferred under the Rules of Racing so that decision makers have the flexibility necessary to ensure that racing’s image as a sport is administered with fairness and integrity is fostered and protected. The factors to be weighed or to be excluded can only be identified from the particular facts of each case. For that reason, and because any formula would tend to fetter the decision-maker’s discretion, there cannot be any predetermined list of factors to apply”.

With this in mind, we now turn to consider the competing arguments against the background of the factual matrix.

The competing arguments are quite simple. The connections of the six horses left in the starting gates say that the race should be declared null and void. The connections of the eight horses that competed say there should be no change and, by implication say that the six horses left in the gates should be late scratched.

Was a false start properly declared?

Eight jockeys, quite clearly, did not know that a false start had been declared by the starter. They raced “genuinely” to the finishing post. These eight jockeys were affected by the starter’s call of a false start. However, as we have discussed above, by virtue of the time delay in giving the signal, which was not picked up by those effected, it is this committee’s ruling that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 631(5) that a false start had not been properly declared, because it had not been “completed”.

Thus that leaves this committee with the decision (using our absolute discretion) to determine whether the race should be declared null and void. We have regard to, as directed by Rule 631(6)(e), the interests of the betting public.

The impact of declaring six horses as non-starters means two things – the betting public have their bets refunded but the connections lose out on the opportunity to run in the race. It is our view, because the rule directs us to the interests of the betting public, that in terms of our discretion, that the race most certainly should not have been run again. It is a certainty, that if we directed that the raced be run again that there would be at least eight horses scratched – they had their run, and to suggest that all trainers of the horses that competed would line their horses up again is unrealistic. Moreover, the betting public who had succeeded in the first instance, would have been deprived of their dividends and their chances of succeeding again on the horses that they had favoured, would be significantly limited. Thus unfairness would result all around if we had directed the race to be run again. Moreover, even if we were to declare the race null and void, and not direct a re-run of the race that unfairness would result to the connections of the entire field.

For the reasons set out above, in relation to Information A5393, we decline to rule that the race should be declared null and void.

Should the six horses left in the starting gates be declared non-starters?

This question is easily disposed of. In terms of rule 632, there was a mechanical failure of the starting gates. Those six horses were denied a fair start. Their chances were materially affected.
 

Decision(s):

For the above reasons we declare “Feel D’Cash”, “Intense”, “Iona Castle”, “Hot Property”, “Velluto” and “Dollyaday” to be non-starters.

Dividends and stakes are to be paid in accordance with the Judge’s placings.

Footnote:

Following the hearing and the delivery of our raceday decision, we were advised by the Club’s Secretary, that NZTR have elected to pay to the connections of the horses declared to be non-starters the sum of $500 each, plus the jockey’s riding fee.

Edited October 12, 2015 by 2Admin2

[lecithin 429]

OK so they are happy to "manipulate" the rules and claim that a false start wasn't "completed" - that's a stretch in my opinion.  However, even if we accept that, (which I don't) why didn't they interview every jockey in the race to ensure that none of them at any stage during the race thought there was a false start?  Why interview the three jockeys that filled the placings, it's unlikely they are going to say "yeah I knew there was a false start so the race should be declared void".

The outcome of many races is effected by split second decisions of jockeys and if any of them (even for a brief moment) questioned whether there was a false start or hesitated in any way due to this, it could be argued their chances could have been affected and hence any punters that bet on them deserved for the race to be declared void in my opinion.

[gubellini 4,004]

Hales and Anderson have trampled Rule 631(5) into the ground. Dangerous precedent. What rule will be contravened next?

[rdytdy 5,343]

This stretching it to beyond belief.

This what the rule is regarding a false start.

Rule 631 (5). 
“The starter’s decision as whether or not a proper start has been effected and to any other matter in connection with the start shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, including where the Starter has by his actions declared a Race to be a false start.”

 

I have viewed the footage and witnessed that the starter determined that it was a false start, I saw the guy on the track after the start wave the red flag at the riders. Those very actions tell me that a false start was declared. The commentator witnessed the guy on the track waving the flag and he said in his commentary "it's a false start."  

Therefore the starters action's have declared a false start. The race becomes null and void. How does the jockeys' not noticing come into it?

Rule 631 (5). states that "The starter's decision as whether or not a proper start has been effected shall be final and not subject to appeal.

That then begs the question why the JCA were asked to rule on the matter. It was out of their jurisdiction. 

 Have a look at Rule 

1. 902 (1) The Judicial Committee shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all proceedings commenced pursuant to these Rules, which are not expressly stated by any of these Rules to be within the jurisdiction of any other person or body.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

[Yir Tiz 223]

Christ!!! Just sat down at the desk to finish and send my epistle, and saw this.first.  Mainly l was requesting that they get the head sherang to review the decision. Interestingly this report was lodged today and not Friday...gave them the whole weekend to come up with that little gem.  Well l know what l have to do now ...and since l hold a number of potentially lucrative "first 4 placing" futures bets on the Caulfield Cup and l can not ask the TAB to cancel those bets as per their own T&Cs for futures l am in the position that l can not close my TAB account until Monday the 19th October. That will conclude a 40 year relationship with them and in turn more importantly NZ Racing!.  That really saddens me. However l no longer have confidence in their processes....RACING INTEGRITY!! And fostering investment and interest as per their own website!!! Hmm-mph anyone like a Tui's?. Bugger was a great email, have to start the sayonara one now for Monday morning.

[Yir Tiz 223]

OOOOOP,s that's how peeved l amm l hit button twice!!!

Edited October 12, 2015 by Yir Tiz
Posted twice dumb-arse

[rdytdy 5,343]

Below is some very good research by Curious from Chanel 2 (thank you Curious)

I would bet that if this had been a G1 race and the hot favourite had been one of the horses left in the gates a different result would have been determined. 

Curious advises: 

 

From the Starter's Manual:

 

7.1 False Start
The Starter may signal a false start where in their opinion runners were not afforded a fair start due to mechanical failure of the barrier stalls, such as gates opening prematurely, slowly, or not at all. As a guide, false starts should be declared when:
- One or more gates open prematurely in any race.
- More than two gates are slow to open or fail to open in any race.
- Two gates are slow to open or fail to open in races with 6 or less starters.
- One or more gates are slow to open or fail to open in any race run over more than one full circuit of the track. (Given both that such gates and horses may impede horses racing into the straight on a second occasion and staying horses are more likely to be able to be restrained when a false start is called).

In the event of a false start being declared, the Starter is to ensure that the
False Start operational plan is put into effect and that immediate communication is made with the relevant officials to inform them of this decision.

Now it appears to me, that means that the declaration of the false start and the subsequent operational plan are two separate steps which the JCA have now conflated.

The JCA themselves state that a false start had been declared but the riders' were not made aware in contradiction to their ruling.
"The remaining horses raced on in a “genuine” fashion, with no idea that a false start had been declared."

Here is the previous wording of the relevant rule that rule 631(5) now covers. I doubt the NZTR board intended the new wording to take on any different meaning.

8.11.05 (5A) Provided that where the Starter has by his actions declared a race to be a false start, the Judicial Committee shall have no power to declare such race as being validly run.

 

 

[lecithin 429]

Christ!!! Just sat down at the desk to finish and send my epistle, and saw this.first.  Mainly l was requesting that they get the head sherang to review the decision. Interestingly this report was lodged today and not Friday...gave them the whole weekend to come up with that little gem.  Well l know what l have to do now ...and since l hold a number of potentially lucrative "first 4 placing" futures bets on the Caulfield Cup and l can not ask the TAB to cancel those bets as per their own T&Cs for futures l am in the position that l can not close my TAB account until Monday the 19th October. That will conclude a 40 year relationship with them and in turn more importantly NZ Racing!.  That really saddens me. However l no longer have confidence in their processes....RACING INTEGRITY!! And fostering investment and interest as per their own website!!! Hmm-mph anyone like a Tui's?. Bugger was a great email, have to start the sayonara one now for Monday morning.

Come on Yir Tiz, the more I read and digest the decision the more I come to the conclusion that someone has to take a stand and show their decision is just plain wrong.

The main basis for the ruling seems to be that the JCA concluded that a false start was "not completed".  I can see no definition in the rules of what "completing" a false start is or even that a false start must be "completed" for the race to be declared void.  Indeed the last part of Rule 631 (5) - "including where the Starter has by his actions declared a Race to be a false start" would actually tend to suggest the complete opposite (i.e. if a starter acts in a way that implies he is declaring a false start then it is a false start even if the normal process such as the marshall waving the flag doesn't happen or happens belatedly).  In the video replay, someone that sounds like the starter can be clearly be heard saying "whoa, whoa, whoa" less than 3 seconds after the gates open - if this was the starter surely these actions are signalling his intention to declare the false start even if he then takes too long to notify the marshall of it.

The JCA are clearly clutching at straws if they feel the need to include statements in their decision such as "The horses that started were well past the starter before he signalled [the false start]" as if this implies that the race should not be declared a false start.  The starter was about half a metre in front of the starting stalls so did they really expect him to signal the false start before the horses passed him (i.e. which would have to have been before any of them left the gates)??

I'm sure, like me, you're not worried about the cash you lost, but the principal of the matter.  It's hard enough to stomach decisions when there is descretion and you don't agree with the outcome, but when there are black and white rules that don't allow discretion that aren't followed, it's simply not acceptable.  I suggest you still write to the appropriate people and ask for a refund of your bet on principal - if that doesn't get you anywhere lodging a claim in the disputes tribunal might as I can't imagine they would want that publicity and I can't see how any sensible person could come to the conclusion that they were justified in not declaring the race void.

[Peter Harrop 226]

A false start is a false start. It should be black and white, not different shades of grey. A dangerous precedent is being set otherwise.

[Bimbo 734]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/72950085/race-starters-actions-over-false-start-woeful-says-judicial-panel

Chris Johnson and Doni Prastiyou said they were not aware of the false start and Lisa Allpress said the same but she had suspected a false start when she noticed the runner next to her in the gates was not released.

What about we tell Lisa Allpress she can keep her riding percentage regardless, and then ask her to be a bit more precise as to whether she thought it was a false start or not. 

[Yir Tiz 223]

Come on Yir Tiz, the more I read and digest the decision the more I come to the conclusion that someone has to take a stand and show their decision is just plain wrong.

The main basis for the ruling seems to be that the JCA concluded that a false start was "not completed".  I can see no definition in the rules of what "completing" a false start is or even that a false start must be "completed" for the race to be declared void.  Indeed the last part of Rule 631 (5) - "including where the Starter has by his actions declared a Race to be a false start" would actually tend to suggest the complete opposite (i.e. if a starter acts in a way that implies he is declaring a false start then it is a false start even if the normal process such as the marshall waving the flag doesn't happen or happens belatedly).  In the video replay, someone that sounds like the starter can be clearly be heard saying "whoa, whoa, whoa" less than 3 seconds after the gates open - if this was the starter surely these actions are signalling his intention to declare the false start even if he then takes too long to notify the marshall of it.

The JCA are clearly clutching at straws if they feel the need to include statements in their decision such as "The horses that started were well past the starter before he signalled [the false start]" as if this implies that the race should not be declared a false start.  The starter was about half a metre in front of the starting stalls so did they really expect him to signal the false start before the horses passed him (i.e. which would have to have been before any of them left the gates)??

I'm sure, like me, you're not worried about the cash you lost, but the principal of the matter.  It's hard enough to stomach decisions when there is descretion and you don't agree with the outcome, but when there are black and white rules that don't allow discretion that aren't followed, it's simply not acceptable.  I suggest you still write to the appropriate people and ask for a refund of your bet on principal - if that doesn't get you anywhere lodging a claim in the disputes tribunal might as I can't imagine they would want that publicity and I can't see how any sensible person could come to the conclusion that they were justified in not declaring the race void.

Yep you are correct Lecithin!!, having read the STUFF item that Bimbo has put up....these JCA lot look like a pack of twits. They are going to throw the starter "under the bus" that is quite clear from the report. Yep it was a stuff-up, but having read that report from JCA today....with that info in front of them it was really a 50/50 call , and would have just been as easy to do the right thing and void the race.

MIND BOGGLING and now due to STUFF the general reader is most likely thinking WTF!!.

Will restructure the email and include the item that Rdytdy/Curious have provided and go again!!.

[Leggy 4,093]

Well hopefully, one or more of the affected connections will appeal so we get a review by the Appeals Tribunal.

[Nearco 125]

I watched the first races at Timaru with interest, as I had horses I part-own running later in the day.

I had small investments on the first two races, one on the jockey who would later ride for us, and one on the stable runner. The small investments were essentially to concentrate my attention on the horses, which I often do.

When Race 2 was started, the horse I bet on jumped, but did not figure in the eventual 'finish'. Fair enough, I thought, the jockey didn't try when they realised it was a false start.

This opinion was somwhat corroborated when I analysed the times of the first 5 races (all over 1200m)

R1 3yo maiden time 1.10.42 winning distance 0.5l

R2 maiden 1.11.5 WD 0.5l

R3 maiden 1.10.79  WD 5l

R4 R85 1.9.26  WD 1.5l

R5 R65 1.9.56 WD 0.5hd

Average race time for races 1,3,4,5 was 1.10.0075  

Race 2's time was 2.13% slower or in distance terms 25 metres!  Pretty significant, in my opinion

My conclusion is that the race in question (R2) was run slower than the others, which supported my belief that some of the jockeys thought it was a false start, and weren't trying their hardest to 'win'

This is not a criticism of the jockeys: handling a 500kg animal under racing conditions must be a difficult business, and they need to concentrate on their racecraft, and you could excuse them for leaving the legalities of false starts to the authorities, while they concentrated on the 'race' itself.

In my opinion, declaring the race to be void was the only option.

In my opinion,to poll all the 8 jockeys who participated in the 'race' was a mandatory requirement. Seeking the opinions on only 3 was very poor judgement.

In my opinion, this is another woeful example of unprofessional stewardship of a sport I love and have participated in as a breeder, owner and punter for the best part of 50 years.

Will I continue when my current horses have finished racing? I rather doubt it. We are allowing a once noble sport to be degraded, humiliated and vilified by incompetents.

Nearco

[Leggy 4,093]

Well hopefully, one or more of the affected connections will appeal so we get a review by the Appeals Tribunal.

Actually, if the RIU had any credibility or gumption, given they put it to the JCA that the race should be declared null and void and were overruled, they should appeal the decision.

[gubellini 4,004]

Nearco great summary of the facts.Totally agree with you. I feel sorry for the starter and the Stipendiary Steward. They have been kneecapped by the two man Judicial Control Junta.

[Bimbo 734]

Well hopefully, one or more of the affected connections will appeal so we get a review by the Appeals Tribunal.

They've been paid out.  Should keep them quiet:

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing have elected to pay connections of the horses declared to be non-starters the sum of $500 each, plus the jockey's riding fee.

https://www.punters.com.au/news/Starters-actions-branded-woeful-by-judiciary_140272/

Only losers appear to be the TAB's customers.

Come on Mr CEO, General Manager of Customer Experiences or whoever is in charge of this outfit, do the right thing and pay the punters out instead of shafting them!

[rdytdy 5,343]

A false start is a false start. It should be black and white, not different shades of grey. A dangerous precedent is being set otherwise.

Exactly. Riders now know that if they continue to race on and afterwards say they weren't aware of a false start, then with the precedent here, the race is valid and placings will stand.

I cannot find anywhere in the rules regarding false starts where it states that the rider's have to be aware that a false start has been declared. 

From the starter's Rule book:

In the event of a false start being declared, the Starter is to ensure that the 
False Start operational plan is put into effect and that immediate communication is made with the relevant officials to inform them of this decision. 

 

He put the plan in place by indicating a false start and the the track steward has waved the red flag down the track. He then advises the stewards that he declared a false start. Therefore the false start has been completed surely. 

 

[Scotch Thistle 133]

I reckon the faults disclosed by this fiasco lie, in sequence, with the club (using clapped out stalls), the club (employing a starter with the reaction time of a comatose tortoise), the club (starters steward lacking energy with the red flag), the RIU (laying informations with the JCU in ignorance of the starter's decision on a false start being final) and the JCU for making a decision outside their powers.

The most disturbing faults lie with the RIU and the JCU, as their incompetence impacts the operations and reputations of all 3 codes, across the country and beyond.

[Leggy 4,093]

I reckon the faults disclosed by this fiasco lie, in sequence, with the club (using clapped out stalls), the club (employing a starter with the reaction time of a comatose tortoise), the club (starters steward lacking energy with the red flag), the RIU (laying informations with the JCU in ignorance of the starter's decision on a false start being final) and the JCU for making a decision outside their powers.

The most disturbing faults lie with the RIU and the JCU, as their incompetence impacts the operations and reputations of all 3 codes, across the country and beyond.

Aside from the fact that it's the JCA, not the JCU, that pretty much sums it up ST.

[the shue25 145]

I reckon the faults disclosed by this fiasco lie, in sequence, with the club (using clapped out stalls), the club (employing a starter with the reaction time of a comatose tortoise), the club (starters steward lacking energy with the red flag), the RIU (laying informations with the JCU in ignorance of the starter's decision on a false start being final) and the JCU for making a decision outside their powers.

The most disturbing faults lie with the RIU and the JCU, as their incompetence impacts the operations and reputations of all 3 codes, across the country and beyond.

The starter has been doing this job for over 30 years,so i would imagine he has a fair idea of what to do in a situation like this .seems to me the  jca are just resting the blame on the starter guy and using him as a scapegoat.

[Yir Tiz 223]

Come on Yir Tiz, the more I read and digest the decision the more I come to the conclusion that someone has to take a stand and show their decision is just plain wrong.

The main basis for the ruling seems to be that the JCA concluded that a false start was "not completed".  I can see no definition in the rules of what "completing" a false start is or even that a false start must be "completed" for the race to be declared void.  Indeed the last part of Rule 631 (5) - "including where the Starter has by his actions declared a Race to be a false start" would actually tend to suggest the complete opposite (i.e. if a starter acts in a way that implies he is declaring a false start then it is a false start even if the normal process such as the marshall waving the flag doesn't happen or happens belatedly).  In the video replay, someone that sounds like the starter can be clearly be heard saying "whoa, whoa, whoa" less than 3 seconds after the gates open - if this was the starter surely these actions are signalling his intention to declare the false start even if he then takes too long to notify the marshall of it.

The JCA are clearly clutching at straws if they feel the need to include statements in their decision such as "The horses that started were well past the starter before he signalled [the false start]" as if this implies that the race should not be declared a false start.  The starter was about half a metre in front of the starting stalls so did they really expect him to signal the false start before the horses passed him (i.e. which would have to have been before any of them left the gates)??

I'm sure, like me, you're not worried about the cash you lost, but the principal of the matter.  It's hard enough to stomach decisions when there is descretion and you don't agree with the outcome, but when there are black and white rules that don't allow discretion that aren't followed, it's simply not acceptable.  I suggest you still write to the appropriate people and ask for a refund of your bet on principal - if that doesn't get you anywhere lodging a claim in the disputes tribunal might as I can't imagine they would want that publicity and I can't see how any sensible person could come to the conclusion that they were justified in not declaring the race void.

 

Here ya go email sent to Mr Purcell

 

 

 

Serious concerns in regard to Race 2 Timaru and subsequent flawed ruling by JCA

 

 

Dear Mr Purcell,

 

I am writing in regard to the incident that took place on Friday 9th October at the Timaru Race Meeting in particular Race 2.

 

As you may be aware this race did not quite go as well as expected .

 

Firstly due to aged equipment not being reliable, and secondly considerable hesitation by the starter in declaring a false start.

This is all well accepted as happened on the day, and now widely reported in the general media for example STUFF.co.nz    , as well as a popular topic on Racing Enthusiast sites.

 

It is unfortunate to have a race marred by events such as those that occurred, however the real travesty in this case is what transpired post-race when a ruling was sought from the JCA representatives by the steward Mr McLaughlin.

 

The report that was produced is  in my opinion based on an incomplete interview process by way of the “sample” of interviewees.

This coupled with the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the act   that the JCA  Representatives have applied/quoted in their ruling /decision, has led to what I strongly believe is a flawed decision .

 

I am of the strong opinion that the race was in fact not run on its merits and the outcome not fair and reasonable to all participants. 

 

Firstly-

The recorded times of identical events on the day (Maiden 1200 meters) clearly show a much slower time recorded for Race2.

     I assert the reason for this is perhaps one or more of the Jockeys did hesitate somewhere along the way. 

The small sample of Jockeys that were interviewed may not have readily admitted to a hesitation / not doing what they normally would,  due to the race was not going to be voided, they would in fact  have incriminated themselves to the charge of “not riding a horse on its merits/showing no vigour”.

An invidious position for them indeed.

 

Or perhaps if we put it into the “race pattern” or “pressure in a race” sense the other fields actually both had 14 starters, Race 2 would have had 14 starters, and most likely a more consistent time in line with Race 1 & 3.

Therefore the outcome of Race 3 was affected by the reduction of  6 runners as well as the confusion that ensued.

 

 

Race1) 1 10 42

Race2)  1 11 50

Race 3) 1 09 79

 

Secondly-

The False start was declared albeit delayed, however since it may not have actually occurred to anyone making the ultimate decisions.

Perhaps the delay arose when the starter did see virtually half the field still in the starting gates he got a bit of a “start” (excuse the pun) and did not quite believe his eyes ,and that led to the delay.

 

Here is an excerpt from the starters manual for your perusal.

It would seem that there are two separate actions required, the false start and the operational plan. 

 The JCA have not recognised in their ruling, by stating 

“The remaining horses raced on in “genuine” fashion with no idea that a false start had been declared.

 

 

From the Starter's Manual:

 

7.1 False Start 

The Starter may signal a false start where in their opinion runners were not afforded a fair start due to mechanical failure of the barrier stalls, such as gates opening prematurely, slowly, or not at all. As a guide, false starts should be declared when: 

- One or more gates open prematurely in any race. 

- More than two gates are slow to open or fail to open in any race. 

- Two gates are slow to open or fail to open in races with 6 or less starters. 

- One or more gates are slow to open or fail to open in any race run over more than one full circuit of the track. (Given both that such gates and horses may impede horses racing into the straight on a second occasion and staying horses are more likely to be able to be restrained when a false start is called). 

 

In the event of a false start being declared, the Starter is to ensure that the 

False Start operational plan is put into effect and that immediate communication is made with the relevant officials to inform them of this decision. 

.

 

 

Action I am requesting you undertake

 

I am requesting that you have this decision reviewed and overturned by  whoever you deem to be able to interpret  the rules as they should have been in this case.  This event could and should have been declared null and void.

 

 I  also note that the NZTR have “elected” to pay the connections of the late scratched horses $500.00 plus riding fees?.

 

The term elected interests me from the point that it would indicate it has been a voluntary action and not a normal compensation that is forthcoming for inconvenienced parties. 

 

Keeping in mind now that the NZTR can make “elected” decisions in regard to what really is a “goodwill” gesture, perhaps the TAB arm can now follow suit and refund all bets on the unplaced runners (4th-8th) as well as “top up” the diminished dividends that were paid after 6 late scratchings.

 

I support the argument above with portions (highlighted) from the actual JCA report published on Monday the 12th.

 

 

 

 

e) the interests of the public who have invested on that race….

In terms of considering the “absolute discretion” that we have we are mindful of a decision of the Appeal Judges in the case involving the 1996 Kurow Cup.

“Deciding how to exercise a discretion involves an intellectual process of weighing relevant factors, excluding irrelevant factors and reaching a rational conclusion capable of explanation with reasons. It requires qualities of sound judgement, wisdom and logic, as well as an instinct for fair play. Discretions are conferred under the Rules of Racing so that decision makers have the flexibility necessary to ensure that racing’s image as a sport is administered with fairness and integrity is fostered and protected. The factors to be weighed or to be excluded can only be identified from the particular facts of each case. For that reason, and because any formula would tend to fetter the decision-maker’s discretion, there cannot be any predetermined list of factors to apply”.

 

    The resolution I am seeking

 

    Mr Purcell, I have supported NZ racing for over 40 years by way of investing solely with the NZ TAB , there have been times where I have been dissatisfied with rulings post race but I accept that it is a wager that I place on an outcome.

    With the events that took place on Friday and the subsequent inept ruling based on a flawed investigation I currently have no confidence to further invest another dollar in NZ racing if this is the result I am expected to accept.

 

Since this event on Friday I have not supported one NZ race via the TAB website.

 I have diverted all my interest and funds to Australian races as a protest. 

 

Please note  I take no pleasure in taking this stand and would be willing to reverse that stance should some common sense be able to be applied here.

 

Therefore I am requesting that based on the argument and points I have put forward this decision is reviewed and overturned .

All investments refunded.

 

The actual JCA report states  in their summary 

“The factors to be weighed or to be excluded can only be identified from the particular facts of each case.”

 

 This event that took place is an extremely unusual case ,and in turn perhaps requires an unusual and unique remedy by your organisation.

 

As an aside whilst  Race2 was being “run” I was actually filling out the latest TAB survey, these have mainly been targeted at establishing what is referred to as “leakage”.

 I did comment in the survey that I would really like to see F/O on HK racing or I may consider taking my business offshore.

 

If I can be quite pointed here bugger HK , I now have a reason to take all of my business offshore. 

Since May I have deposited and turned over upwards of $33,716 with NZ TAB.

This is actually the not about the $50.00 I unfairly lost on Mulberry (the other bet was refunded as a late scratching) it is the principal of the matter.

Or if you will the last straw scenario.

 

Please advise a timeframe for a review decision.

 

Sincerely SXXXXXX XXXXX 

TAB ACCT # XXXXXX

 

[Leggy 4,093]

Good onya. Well done Yir Tiz.

[JOJAN 29]

Lets get back to the initial problem, the worn out set of starting gates, having raced horses out of these gates, having horses standing in them for a lot of time while the starters assistants run around trying to find the problem,its about time the Timaru club stopped being stubbon and get the gates down from Riccarton, also at most tracks the person with the flag stands on the track so the jockeys can see him, not away out to the side of the track, is this another bullshit health and safety issue like all the trees that are being cut down at racetracks around the south.

[Yir Tiz 223]

My thoughts are It was part of a problem that in turn highlighted a larger problem. That incident of the gates failing could well have  happened at any course at anytime. Yes the funds that are being collected are not being reinvested in necessary infrastructure.  We have seen it on numerous occasions wether it be one or numerous gates that fail . As investors in any event , we accept  there may be external factors that impact the outcome......it's the rules & regs that are there to be applied in this case that were determined illogically is really the only description l have!.  I actually think the starter will bear the brunt of this sadly.....the adage "workman only as good as his tools" springs to mind. You are correct though, someone does need to go straight to "advanced flag waving school" .

[Phantom 494]

Great article in today's Herald by Mike Dillon in which trainers Peter Williams, Shaun Clotworthy and Allan Pead bemoan the total lack of leadership in NZ Racing and their complete lack of confidence in the NZRB and the RIU. We have become the laughing stock of world racing. Take a bow Glenda!!!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/racing/news/article.cfm?c_id=53&objectid=11528573