South Canterbury RC 9 October 2015 – R 2 (request for a ruling) – Chair, Mr K Hales
ID: JCA12884
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
South Canterbury RC - 9 October 2015
Meet Chair:
KHales
Meet Committee Member 1:
DAnderson
Race Date:
2015/10/09
Race Number:
R 2
Decision:
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.
Facts:
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.”
Submissions 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.
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: 64ab4de87ee257350f6573b0f1580df3
informantnumber: A5393 and A5394
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 11/10/2015
hearing_title: South Canterbury RC 9 October 2015 - R 2 (request for a ruling) - Chair, Mr K Hales
charge:
facts:
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.”
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
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.
reasonsfordecision:
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:
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.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Request Ruling
Rules: 632 and 902(2)(a)(iii)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward: Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
raceid: e5f78001ec4d419b3b400ce5ff2496bc
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 94ba6bf8cc496e64d9777397337e0910
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 09/10/2015
meet_title: South Canterbury RC - 9 October 2015
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: south-canterbury-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: KHales
meet_pm1: DAnderson
meet_pm2: none
name: South Canterbury RC