Canterbury JC 28 May 2010 – R 6 (request for a ruling)

hearingid: 404791dd6c14d615055c2ace00908681

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 28/05/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Canterbury JC 28 May 2010 - R 6 (request for a ruling)

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  K H Hughes - Licensed Trainer  

Defendant:  N/A

Information No: 41029 (request for a ruling)

Meeting: Canterbury Jockey Club

Date: 28 May 2010

Venue: Riccarton Park, Christchurch

Race: 6

Rule No: 534 (2) (b)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – K G Hales, Panellist

Plea: N/A

Also present:

FACTS:

Licensed Trainer, Mr K H Hughes, filed Information No. 41029, by way of a request for a ruling, seeking a ruling from the Committee as to “whether MISSCEO [trained by him and S A Kellow] should be a late scratching [from Race 6] due to a material change to the track conditions”.

MISSCEO was an acceptor for Race 6, Speight’s Haldon Plate.

Rule 534 provides as follows:

(2)     (a)     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, an Owner or lessee(as the case may be) or his Agent or its 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 that warrant the horse being scratched and that he is therefore entitled to scratch it after that time. If the Stipendiary Steward is so satisfied, the Stipendiary Steward may authorise the Owner or lessee (as the case may be) or his Agent or its Racing Manager to scratch the horse.

         (b)     If the Stipendiary Steward is not so 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 such circumstances and whether the Owner or lessee (as the case may be) or his Agent or its Racing Manager is allowed to scratch the horse after that time.

         (c)     A material change in the condition of the track, occurring 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, shall be deemed by the Stipendiary Steward and the Judicial Committee to constitute such circumstances.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Hughes said that he had a look at the track in the morning and was satisfied that it was a “Heavy 11” and that it was a heavy track. However, as the day went on, the rain continued after 7.30 am. After the hurdle race (Race 1), it became apparent that the track was far worse than anyone could have imagined. He thought it would be too much for the horse, a 3-year-old filly having her first start. The track was far more testing than it appeared at 7.30 am. The track had deteriorated significantly after the first two races. It was not in the best interests of the filly, or the public, for her to run, Mr Hughes submitted.

Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward, stated that the Stewards permit horses to be scratched after the 7.30 am deadline if there has been a change in the track “banding”. He pointed out that there are 11 “bands”, with 11 being the heaviest. He said that the difficulty was with the meaning of “material change”. It was difficult to argue that there had not been a material change in the track, given that it had rained since 7.30 am. However, Mr Hughes had admitted to having walked the track in the morning and he had a “duty of care” as a trainer to know how heavy it was. Heavy 11 was the maximum track rating and for the Stewards to argue that it had not materially changed would be difficult. Mr Neal said that, had the Stewards granted Mr Hughes’ request to scratch MISSCEO, it may well have “opened the floodgates” for others. Each case should be considered on its own merits. 

REASON(S):

The Committee gave consideration to the submissions of Mr Hughes in relation to his request to late scratch MISSCEO from Race 6 due to a material change, which he submitted had occurred, in the track conditions. We also gave consideration, in arriving at our ruling, to the submissions made by Mr Neal.

Mr Hughes said that he had inspected the track this morning and, after doing so, decided not to scratch MISSCEO but, he submitted, since 7.30 am, the rain had continued and, having watched a couple of races, he was of the view that the track was worse than he had originally gauged. He further submitted that it was not in the best interests either of the horse or the betting public that she should race.

Mr Neal invited the Committee to find that there had been a material change in the track conditions justifying the late scratching of MISSCEO. He explained that the track was rated as “Heavy 11” which was the highest rating.

The Committee believed that, to rule that Mr Hughes should be permitted to late scratch the filly, it must be satisfied that there had been a material change in the track conditions. We were not so satisfied. It was significant, in the Committee’s view, that today’s track was rated Heavy 11, which is the top rating under NZTR’s 11-scale Track Rating System, introduced in June 2008. The rating of “Heavy 11” is described in the Rating System as “very soft and wet, heaviest category”.

While there had been further rain since 7.30 am, the Committee was not satisfied that it had materially changed the track conditions that prevailed at 7.30 am. It would have been speculative to hold that there had been a material change.

DECISION:

The Committee ruled that Mr Hughes’ request to late scratch MISSCEO from her engagement in Race 6 be declined.

R G McKenzie            K G Hales

CHAIR                       Committee Member

41029

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 534 (2) (b)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: d07492bfe6fc7c0fa0b7fd24701d3fff

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 6

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: fb7e1765c1bb7a628ec57c19b23ceff3

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 28/05/2010

meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 28 May 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: canterbury-racing

meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: Canterbury Racing