Wairarapa RC 2 January 2016 – R 3 – Chair, Mr T Castles
ID: JCA15222
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Wairarapa RC - 2 January 2016
Meet Chair:
TCastles
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Race Date:
2016/01/02
Race Number:
R 3
Decision:
The charge brought under rule 534(2)(a)(b) was dismissed.
Facts:
Prior to the running of Race 3 The McKenzie Electrical Mr M Eales the trainer of EXPEDITE was charged under Rule 534 (2) (A) in that Trainer M Eales scratched EXPEDITE without the permission of the stewards.
Rule 534 (2)(a) reads.....
If after the scratching deadline ( as specified for the relevant race meeting in accordance with Rule 510(d) (v) or as amended by NZTR from time to time). On the relevant race day a trainer, owner, or lessee (as the case may be) or his agent or racing manager wishes to scratch a horse from a race he must (whether by production of a veterinary certificate acceptable to the stipendiary steward or otherwise) attempt to satisfy the stipendiary steward that there are circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched and that he is therefore entitled to scratch it after that time. If the stipendiary steward is satisfied he may authorise the trainer, owner, or lessee (as the case may be) or his agent or racing manager to scratch the horse.
(b) If the stipendiary steward is not satisfied he shall complete an information and file it with the registrar for the judicial committee and the judicial committee shall then determine whether there are any circumstances and whether the trainer, owner or lessee (as the case may be) or its agent or racing manager is authorized to scratch the horse after that time.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr N Goodwin informed the committee that Mr Eales approached the Stewards asking for his horse EXPEDITE to be scratched from Race 3 because of a change in weather conditions and his horse would not be suited by the material change.
The track manager had informed the stewards that the track was, in his opinion, positioned between a Good 3 and a Dead 4.
Two races had been run and Mr Goodwin believed at the time of the request the track conditions had not changed even though light rain had been falling from about 10.30am. He believed that under the rules the request should be declined.
Mr M Eales confirmed that he understood the rule but believed his actions in scratching the horse was in EXPEDITE's best interests. When he left home at about 7.30 the weather was fine and he had noted the track conditions on the website. When he got to Masterton the rain had left puddles on the roadside and the drizzly conditions continued all the way to the racecourse. He believed the track conditions must have changes because of the amount of rain that had fallen (about 5 mls) he thought.
Mr Eales told the committee that his horse did not appreciate a rain affected track. It was pointed out to Mr Eales that EXPEDITE (the horse concerned) according to the day's racebook had started and been placed on a track classed as soft. Mr Eales confirmed that, but stated that there was no rain that day and the track (Woodville) had a good sole of grass. He also confirmed that since arriving on the track there had been no change in track conditions.
At the conclusion of Race 3, Stipendiary Steward, N Goodwin called two senior jockeys JKB Riddell and R Hannam to the Stewards' room and asked them for their assessment of track conditions. They both felt that track conditions had changed since Race 1. Mr Riddell believed the track to be a Dead 4. Mr Hannam indicated that he felt it was between Dead 4 and Dead 5.
Mr Eales, after hearing the assessments from the two senior riders believed the track conditions had changed.
Mr Goodwin then spoke to other riders and informed the committee that he had downgraded the track to a Dead 5.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered the statements from both parties. The Rule 534(2)(a) was revisited.....the key being there are circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched and he is therefore entitled to scratch it after that time. That rule is, in the Committee’s opinion, a little ambiguous and confusing. While no change in track conditions had happened since appearing on the racing bureau website a substantial amount of rain had fallen prior to the running of race 3.
It was pointed out to Mr Eales during the hearing that the track conditions is the indicator used in determining the racing surface and that because it has rained there is no guarantee that track conditions have changed. Communications between jockeys and Stipendiary Stewards during race day are ongoing and at the time of Mr Eales request no downgrade of track conditions had occurred. However, on hearing from the two senior riders and other jockeys following race 3 Mr Goodwin decided to downgrade the track to Dead 5. The committee took the view that with the downgrade the circumstances to warrant the horse to be scratched had changed.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 781e02d492bd6f239dc9bc961ffa4caf
informantnumber: A6841
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Late scratching of horse
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 0
decisiondate: 04/01/2016
hearing_title: Wairarapa RC 2 January 2016 - R 3 - Chair, Mr T Castles
charge:
facts:
Prior to the running of Race 3 The McKenzie Electrical Mr M Eales the trainer of EXPEDITE was charged under Rule 534 (2) (A) in that Trainer M Eales scratched EXPEDITE without the permission of the stewards.
Rule 534 (2)(a) reads.....
If after the scratching deadline ( as specified for the relevant race meeting in accordance with Rule 510(d) (v) or as amended by NZTR from time to time). On the relevant race day a trainer, owner, or lessee (as the case may be) or his agent or racing manager wishes to scratch a horse from a race he must (whether by production of a veterinary certificate acceptable to the stipendiary steward or otherwise) attempt to satisfy the stipendiary steward that there are circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched and that he is therefore entitled to scratch it after that time. If the stipendiary steward is satisfied he may authorise the trainer, owner, or lessee (as the case may be) or his agent or racing manager to scratch the horse.
(b) If the stipendiary steward is not satisfied he shall complete an information and file it with the registrar for the judicial committee and the judicial committee shall then determine whether there are any circumstances and whether the trainer, owner or lessee (as the case may be) or its agent or racing manager is authorized to scratch the horse after that time.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr N Goodwin informed the committee that Mr Eales approached the Stewards asking for his horse EXPEDITE to be scratched from Race 3 because of a change in weather conditions and his horse would not be suited by the material change.
The track manager had informed the stewards that the track was, in his opinion, positioned between a Good 3 and a Dead 4.
Two races had been run and Mr Goodwin believed at the time of the request the track conditions had not changed even though light rain had been falling from about 10.30am. He believed that under the rules the request should be declined.
Mr M Eales confirmed that he understood the rule but believed his actions in scratching the horse was in EXPEDITE's best interests. When he left home at about 7.30 the weather was fine and he had noted the track conditions on the website. When he got to Masterton the rain had left puddles on the roadside and the drizzly conditions continued all the way to the racecourse. He believed the track conditions must have changes because of the amount of rain that had fallen (about 5 mls) he thought.
Mr Eales told the committee that his horse did not appreciate a rain affected track. It was pointed out to Mr Eales that EXPEDITE (the horse concerned) according to the day's racebook had started and been placed on a track classed as soft. Mr Eales confirmed that, but stated that there was no rain that day and the track (Woodville) had a good sole of grass. He also confirmed that since arriving on the track there had been no change in track conditions.
At the conclusion of Race 3, Stipendiary Steward, N Goodwin called two senior jockeys JKB Riddell and R Hannam to the Stewards' room and asked them for their assessment of track conditions. They both felt that track conditions had changed since Race 1. Mr Riddell believed the track to be a Dead 4. Mr Hannam indicated that he felt it was between Dead 4 and Dead 5.
Mr Eales, after hearing the assessments from the two senior riders believed the track conditions had changed.
Mr Goodwin then spoke to other riders and informed the committee that he had downgraded the track to a Dead 5.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered the statements from both parties. The Rule 534(2)(a) was revisited.....the key being there are circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched and he is therefore entitled to scratch it after that time. That rule is, in the Committee’s opinion, a little ambiguous and confusing. While no change in track conditions had happened since appearing on the racing bureau website a substantial amount of rain had fallen prior to the running of race 3.
It was pointed out to Mr Eales during the hearing that the track conditions is the indicator used in determining the racing surface and that because it has rained there is no guarantee that track conditions have changed. Communications between jockeys and Stipendiary Stewards during race day are ongoing and at the time of Mr Eales request no downgrade of track conditions had occurred. However, on hearing from the two senior riders and other jockeys following race 3 Mr Goodwin decided to downgrade the track to Dead 5. The committee took the view that with the downgrade the circumstances to warrant the horse to be scratched had changed.
Decision:
The charge brought under rule 534(2)(a)(b) was dismissed.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 532(2)(a)(b)
Informant: Mr N Goodwin - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr M Eales - Trainer of EXPEDITE
Otherperson: Mr J Riddell - Licensed Jockey, Mr R Hannam - Licensed Jockey
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 95e1d9b4ea7784677cbdf33b881e3c96
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 3
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9a27fbddb72f931f97eec8f57af39f14
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 02/01/2016
meet_title: Wairarapa RC - 2 January 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: wairarapa-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: TCastles
meet_pm1: PWilliams
meet_pm2: none
name: Wairarapa RC