Southland RC 21 February 2016 – R 8 (request for a ruling) – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA18148
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Southland RC - 21 February 2016
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
VMUnro
Race Date:
2016/02/21
Race Number:
R 8
Decision:
Having regard to r 632, we are satisfied having regard to this unusual combination of circumstances, that BRUEGEL has not received a fair start and that this has materially prejudiced the horse’s chances. We rule accordingly.
Facts:
Mr M Pitman sought a ruling under r 632 to determine whether BRUEGEL (Ms H Bennett) was denied a fair start when the starter’s assistant had hold of the horse.
Rule 632 states:
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 starting stalls, or is denied a fair start and such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that horse (but not where the horse is slow away by its own accord), the Judicial Committee may declare such horse to be a non-starter.
BRUEGEL, which started from barrier 1, finished in seventh position.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Pitman stated that the starter had been told that BRUEGEL was not to be touched or held by the bridle when in the starting gates. He said there had been issues with the horse at Gore and this was why the instruction had been given. He said as soon as the horse, which was loaded late, had been led in, an assistant on the side of the gate had taken hold of BRUEGEL. The horse was still being held when it reared up as the gates opened.
When questioned by the Committee as to when he had given these instructions and to whom, he said he not done so personally but they had been given by the horse’s jockey, Ms Bennett.
Ms Bennett then gave evidence that she had told the starter prior to the start that the horse was not to be touched by a starter’s assistant. She said, despite this instruction, an assistant had taken hold of the bridle of BRUEGEL as soon as the horse entered the barrier stall. She said when the gates opened BRUEGEL had reared as the assistant was still holding the horse by the bridle. She said it was some time before the assistant let go. The horse had settled at the rear of the field as a consequence. The intention had been to ride BRUEGEL on the pace. She had been unable to do this.
The starter, Mr Price, was called into the room to give evidence. He said it was a senior assistant who was handling the horse and that BRUEGEL had been fractious. The assistant, in his view, had done everything he could to assist the horse. When questioned by the Committee as to whether he had been instructed that BRUEGEL was not to be handled once in the gates, he said no, he had not been so told. He said the horse had moved backwards and reared just as the gates were opened.
Mr Price was referred to the conversation he had allegedly had with Ms Bennett at the barrier prior to the race. Mr Price hesitated and then apologised, saying yes, Ms Bennett was correct, she had told him BRUEGEL was not to be touched once in the gates. He had forgotten about this and had not told the assistant.
Mr Price then said he wanted to make a further statement. He said one video angle showed the trackside cameraman moving behind his back and against the far side of the rail and to the front of the stalls just as he pushed the button to release the gates. He said it was his view that BRUEGEL had seen this movement and this was why the horse had reared when the gates opened. He could not understand why the cameraman had moved to position himself in the manner he had, and this was not a normal occurrence.
Mr Davidson was asked to comment and he said the videos were clear. The assistant, despite the instructions to the starter, was holding the horse when the gates opened. BRUEGEL had reared up but the assistant had only had a split second to let go of the bridle. BRUEGEL was equal last out of the gates. He confirmed that BRUEGEL had a poor record at the barrier.
Reasons for Decision:
The videos evidence the fact that as soon as BRUEGEL entered the number 1 gate, a starter’s assistant had taken hold of the horse’s bridle. When the gates opened the assistant was still holding the bridle. BRUEGEL reared up and it was not until the horse was at the top of the arc that the assistant let go of the bridle. BRUEGEL was very slow away and settled at the rear of the field. This was contrary to the manner in which Ms Bennett intended to ride the horse.
The evidence of Ms Bennett is clear and it was subsequently confirmed by Mr Price, that instructions had been given that BRUEGEL was not to be touched or held by the bridle when the horse entered the gates. These instructions had not been conveyed to the assistant, who, as we have said, still had hold of the bridle when the gates opened.
Compounding matters, is the fact that the trackside cameraman moved forward from behind to in front of the stalls, against the far side of the running rail, immediately prior to the starter pressing the button to release the gates. Mr Price may be correct when he said that this had caused BRUEGEL to move backwards and to rear. At the very least, it could be seen to be a contributing factor.
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: f35c3533a371429b8286d7c171a31045
informantnumber: 7766
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 22/02/2016
hearing_title: Southland RC 21 February 2016 - R 8 (request for a ruling) - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr M Pitman sought a ruling under r 632 to determine whether BRUEGEL (Ms H Bennett) was denied a fair start when the starter’s assistant had hold of the horse.
Rule 632 states:
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 starting stalls, or is denied a fair start and such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that horse (but not where the horse is slow away by its own accord), the Judicial Committee may declare such horse to be a non-starter.
BRUEGEL, which started from barrier 1, finished in seventh position.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Pitman stated that the starter had been told that BRUEGEL was not to be touched or held by the bridle when in the starting gates. He said there had been issues with the horse at Gore and this was why the instruction had been given. He said as soon as the horse, which was loaded late, had been led in, an assistant on the side of the gate had taken hold of BRUEGEL. The horse was still being held when it reared up as the gates opened.
When questioned by the Committee as to when he had given these instructions and to whom, he said he not done so personally but they had been given by the horse’s jockey, Ms Bennett.
Ms Bennett then gave evidence that she had told the starter prior to the start that the horse was not to be touched by a starter’s assistant. She said, despite this instruction, an assistant had taken hold of the bridle of BRUEGEL as soon as the horse entered the barrier stall. She said when the gates opened BRUEGEL had reared as the assistant was still holding the horse by the bridle. She said it was some time before the assistant let go. The horse had settled at the rear of the field as a consequence. The intention had been to ride BRUEGEL on the pace. She had been unable to do this.
The starter, Mr Price, was called into the room to give evidence. He said it was a senior assistant who was handling the horse and that BRUEGEL had been fractious. The assistant, in his view, had done everything he could to assist the horse. When questioned by the Committee as to whether he had been instructed that BRUEGEL was not to be handled once in the gates, he said no, he had not been so told. He said the horse had moved backwards and reared just as the gates were opened.
Mr Price was referred to the conversation he had allegedly had with Ms Bennett at the barrier prior to the race. Mr Price hesitated and then apologised, saying yes, Ms Bennett was correct, she had told him BRUEGEL was not to be touched once in the gates. He had forgotten about this and had not told the assistant.
Mr Price then said he wanted to make a further statement. He said one video angle showed the trackside cameraman moving behind his back and against the far side of the rail and to the front of the stalls just as he pushed the button to release the gates. He said it was his view that BRUEGEL had seen this movement and this was why the horse had reared when the gates opened. He could not understand why the cameraman had moved to position himself in the manner he had, and this was not a normal occurrence.
Mr Davidson was asked to comment and he said the videos were clear. The assistant, despite the instructions to the starter, was holding the horse when the gates opened. BRUEGEL had reared up but the assistant had only had a split second to let go of the bridle. BRUEGEL was equal last out of the gates. He confirmed that BRUEGEL had a poor record at the barrier.
reasonsfordecision:
The videos evidence the fact that as soon as BRUEGEL entered the number 1 gate, a starter’s assistant had taken hold of the horse’s bridle. When the gates opened the assistant was still holding the bridle. BRUEGEL reared up and it was not until the horse was at the top of the arc that the assistant let go of the bridle. BRUEGEL was very slow away and settled at the rear of the field. This was contrary to the manner in which Ms Bennett intended to ride the horse.
The evidence of Ms Bennett is clear and it was subsequently confirmed by Mr Price, that instructions had been given that BRUEGEL was not to be touched or held by the bridle when the horse entered the gates. These instructions had not been conveyed to the assistant, who, as we have said, still had hold of the bridle when the gates opened.
Compounding matters, is the fact that the trackside cameraman moved forward from behind to in front of the stalls, against the far side of the running rail, immediately prior to the starter pressing the button to release the gates. Mr Price may be correct when he said that this had caused BRUEGEL to move backwards and to rear. At the very least, it could be seen to be a contributing factor.
Decision:
Having regard to r 632, we are satisfied having regard to this unusual combination of circumstances, that BRUEGEL has not received a fair start and that this has materially prejudiced the horse’s chances. We rule accordingly.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Request Ruling
Rules: 632
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr K Price - Starter, Mr M Pitman - Licensed Trainer of BRUGEL, Ms H Bennett - Rider of BRUEGEL
Respondent:
StipendSteward: Mr M Davidson - Stipendiary Steward
raceid: 937128da3bec14b8476914182444abeb
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 9b6ff6aef5e311f887de58502cc663af
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/02/2016
meet_title: Southland RC - 21 February 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: southland-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: VMUnro
meet_pm2: none
name: Southland RC