Chief Stipe

More like first hand experience!!!

Correct. Remember he got involved with the "caffeine" case. Was the "Lay Defence Litigator" at the JCA.

Molly not the comic dog.

Nope. But the West Coast O'Connor's, Guerin's and Molloy's are all related if not blood relations then certainly clothesline related. Robert Dunn is married to Molly's sister.

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V B R D COLE - DECISION DATED 14 AUGUST 2019 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 16 August 2019 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER of a charge under the NZ Rules of Greyhound Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Simon Andrew Irving, Investigator Informant And BRENDON ROSS DOUGLAS COLE Licenced handler Respondent JUDICIAL COMMITTEE Hon J W Gendall QC - Chair Mr T Utikere - Member Appearances: Mr S A Irving RIU Investigator Mr P Brosnahan for Mr B R D Cole Present: Mr B R D Cole HEARING HELD AT WHANGANUI ON 8 AUGUST 2019 DECISION as to reasons for liability and reserved penalty decision [1] Mr B R D Cole is a licensed handler under the Rules of Greyhound Racing. His partner Ms. L Cole is a licensed trainer under those rules. [2] Mr Cole faced a charge that on 7 June 2019, he acted in contravention of a “Warning Off“ notice issued to him by Greyhound Racing NZ pursuant to Rule 5.1 (b) on 20 April 2019 in that he entered onto Hatrick Raceway, Whanganui, while a race meeting was in progress in contravention of his “Warning Off“ notice. This was an offence under Rule 62.1 and punishable under Rule 63.1. [3] We have found the charge to have been proven and established on the balance of probabilities, and in fact to a higher standard, beyond reasonable doubt. After deliberation, we delivered our decision as to liability to Mr Cole. We heard submissions as to penalty and costs made on behalf of the RIU and on his behalf. We now record our reasons and the penalty and costs decisions. [4] Mr Brosnahan said it was not necessary for us to find the charge proven on the required standard of proof as it had been admitted – he said there was “technically” a breach. But it was more than that. The real contest involved the degree of culpability and Mr Cole’s claim made to the Investigator that he was on land not owned by the Greyhound Club and had done nothing wrong. The hearing in fact proceeded in the same way as a “disputed facts” hearing. We considered that it was necessary to deal with Mr Cole’s claim so that he, and all involved in the Code, understand clearly what the Rules require. [5] Rule 62.1 provides that a person commits an offence if he or she contravenes any of the Rules of Greyhound Racing. Disobedience of the warning off given under Rule 5.1 (b) is such a transgression of the Rules. A warning off is defined to mean not being “permitted to enter or remain on any part of the ground or premises where a Greyhound Meeting or trial is being held …” The offence is punishable under the general Rule 63.1 which provides a range of sanctions, being a fine up to $10,000, suspension, disqualification, warning off. [6] BACKGROUND On 27 March 2019, the SPCA brought a charge against Mr Cole in the District Court at Palmerston North which alleged animal cruelty – in the sense of “live baiting.” The court charge is denied by Mr Cole and a defended hearing date is some months away. But as a consequence of the SPCA charge, Mr Cole was warned off on 20 April 2019 under the Greyhound Racing Rule 5.1 (b) which empowers the Board of Greyhound Racing NZ to “ warn off if it deems necessary in the best interests of Greyhound Racing or its related activity in New Zealand”. The warning off was deemed necessary within that provision, because of the serious nature of the court charge which allegedly related to greyhound dogs and the potential detriment and impact to the interests of the Greyhound Industry and Code. Mr Cole and his counsel do not agree. To warn off is defined as we have set out above at para [5]. [7] Mr Cole was given, orally and in writing, the warning off notice on 20 April 2019. Later, on 9 May 2019, there was an extension of the warning off notice by letter sent to Mr Cole and his counsel. [8] After Mr Cole received the warning off notice, Mr Irving received information from others that Mr Cole was disobeying the warning off. The information was to the effect that he had been observed on several occasions on 7 June 2019 to lead greyhounds onto Hatrick Raceway premises when a meeting was in progress, and deliver dogs to others. The Chairman of Stewards reported that he had learnt this from other licence holders, and that he had personally later observed Mr Cole enter the raceway. The evidential statements of the Chairman and second steward are that Mr Cole was observed through binoculars to lead dogs through the main gateway of the racecourse from a trailer on the road and deliver them on several occasions, to another trailer (red) and vehicle parked on the grass verge beside and on the northern side of the pathway. The dogs were then led by another handler further into the raceway to the kennels. We received a coloured photograph taken from a course video at 3.47 pm on that day which shows a number of vehicles including another with a dog trailer (apart from Mr Cole’s) parked on that northern grass verge. We were also shown the video surveillance, albeit taken from a distance, but sufficiently clear to show Mr Cole go in and out of the gate delivering dogs to others at his red trailer on four occasions as well as proceed, on one occasion, to a grass area on the southern side of the walkway, where vehicles were parked inside the outer perimeter fence and then hand something to a woman (his daughter). We were given a still photo of the enlarged image of that activity. [9] The RIU contend that he blatantly defied and endeavoured to subvert the notice and requirement that he not enter the raceway while a meeting was being held. After Mr Cole was served with the information on 12 June 2019 he was interviewed by Mr Irving. He denied that he had acted in breach of the notice requirements. He was adamant that his red trailer was not on raceway land as he was warned, and he had checked at the Whanganui District Council. A transcript of that interview was presented to the Committee. [10] When first interviewed and upon being told of the charge which alleged he entered onto Hatrick Raceway, his initial responses were to pose questions to the Investigator. Namely “Whereabouts did I enter?” and when told “Through the main entrance” he framed another question “To where?” He was told “Onto the racecourse proper. “ Mr Cole then said, and repeatedly asserted, that he parked his vehicle (that is the red dog trailer) on “Marist land” as he had been to the city council and established that where he parked was on land that belonged to the Marist Rugby Club and it “does not belong to Wanganui Greyhounds, so therefore it’s exempt”. He also asserted “it’s a public area. Everybody parks there. “When asked later in the interview about his walking onto the land he said “I’m not saying I walked on to there …. I walked to the gate and the staff take the dogs from there.” But he added that the warning off requirement did not apply to the grass verge land, “same as Manawatu Greyhounds. I can come all the way up, the Greyhound Club has no jurisdiction around any of the harness area or any area around there.” Mr Cole denied leading his dogs from his trailer “other than to the gate and the staff take the dogs from there.” [11] Apart from the evidence of Mr Irving and the record of the interview with Mr Cole, the committee received photographs of the locality, a copy of the lease schedule between the Whanganui District Council (WDC) and the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club, and Mr Brosnahan presented a copy of the Rugby Club certificate of title, and a large overhead photo of Spriggens Park, the raceway and its surrounds. THE EVIDENCE OF MR COLE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY COUNSEL [12] Mr Brosnahan accepted that there had been a warning off although he contended that it was unreasonable and steps were being taken to get the Greyhound Racing Board to review its decision. He submitted that it was accepted that Mr Cole “was inside the gate at the roadway by 2- 3 metres” (that is on the southern side), although this could hardly be disputed given the clear still photograph. But he contended that Mr Cole genuinely believed the area in which his red trailer was parked was Marist land and he had no deliberate intent to defy the notice. [13] Mr Cole’s evidence can be distilled to the following: • he accepted that he had received the warning off notice and said he understood it. He said he “understood I could not go onto a racetrack on land owned by the (or a) Club on a raceday” • after being warned off he had obtained google maps of the raceway (and others) and had gone to the WDC to check on ownership of the raceway. He said he believed the grass verge was land not owned or leased by the Club • he had usually driven his van and red trailer through the gate onto the raceway and parked on the grass verge, as many do • he made changes to this practice, and had others engaged by him to park on the verge and he stayed “outside on the roadway outside the gate but delivered dogs to them at the red trailer site which he believed was on “Marist land”. He said he had been “coming and going in that area all the time” and had done so at 14 race meetings since the warning off OUR FINDINGS [14] The issue turned solely on whether it was established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Cole entered Hatrick Raceway while a greyhound meeting was in progress. That came down to a question of fact and we found not just on the balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt, that the charge was established beyond the limited way Mr Cole said. We concluded that: (a) Mr Cole led dogs onto the raceway on several occasions to one of his vehicles and trailer parked on the grass verge, and onto premises where a greyhound race meeting was being held. He further walked onto the further grass space where vehicles were also parked (the southern side) (b) the claim by Mr Cole to the Investigator that he only was ever “on Marist land” is rejected. First, because faced with the clear photographic evidence his counsel accepts there was a breach, although he describes it as technical/minor. But further, we find that “the ground and premises, within which a meeting is being held,” is not dependant on those conducting the meeting having any ownership or legal tenure of land or part of it. The “Marist land” claim fails for the reasons we set out below [15] We did not find Mr Cole to be a reliable or credible witness. He was evasive at times, when it suited his purpose, and inconsistent in his explanations of certain facts and beliefs. For example, despite his adamant stance or belief made to the Investigator that the Palmerston North raceway which is jointly shared with the Harness Code likewise had “no jurisdiction” because of the land ownership argument, he told us he does not go onto or near that racecourse and employs (at some expense) another to take “his” dogs there. He was evasive in telling us of his knowledge of the Rules, or rather his reading of them when warned. They are clear and can hardly be honestly mistaken. [16] We need to address a submission advanced by counsel as to the lawfulness of the “warning off” – made during the pre-hearing teleconference [17] Counsel contended that • the warning off was unreasonable, unfair and ought not have been made • Mr Cole has not been dealt with in the Court proceedings and has the presumption of innocence and a strong defence • it was legally invalid and could be challenged in Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court but the cost would be prohibitive [18] As A Judicial Committee acting under the Rules of Greyhound Racing it is beyond our function to make any ruling as to the lawfulness of the decision to warn off in the Judicial Review sense and counsel does not ask us to do so. We are bound to proceed on the basis that the warning of notice was lawful and permitted under the Rules. [19] It might be helpful for Mr Cole to understand that judicial review arises only if a decision is unlawful in a limited sense. Mr Brosnahan will know of this. The “unreasonableness“ test is that derived from the English decision of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation[1948]1 K B 223, which made it clear that for a decision to be “unreasonable” so as to make it unlawful and liable to Judicial Review, it has to be established that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person, acting reasonably, could have made it. [20] Mr Cole went to pains to evade, or get around, the notice by going to the Council and developing his “Marist land” strategy. But he is wrong. As a licence holder he ought to know the Rules and he told us he does. That the rugby club has legal title to a small part of the land within the premises used for the raceway is immaterial in determining whether Mr Cole entered on any part of the premises where the meeting was being held. [21] Whilst the charge refers to “Hatrick Raceway” we are satisfied that this is synonymous with “Hatrick Racecourse. The warning off definition under Rule refers to; “…any part of the ground or premises where a Greyhound Meeting or trial is being held. [22] There is nothing in that Rule, or any of the Constitution or other rules, which refers to, or requires, “Ownership or lessee or licensee” of premises. This is reinforced by the Constitution of New Zealand Greyhound Racing which defines a “Racecourse” to mean: “land used for the purposes of Greyhound meetings including the land inside a 100 metre boundary extending outwards from the perimeter of the racetrack” We accept that this has to be sensibly interpreted or applied because, for example, if there were to be measured a distance of 100 metres from a portion of the back straight, the boundary would end up on the roadway used by all vehicular traffic and well out the outside the high fence, which is the obvious delineated boundary. So the 100 metre rule has to be applied purposely. But the area with which we are concerned, and as is seen in the coloured photograph, is squarely within 30-40 metres of the track perimeter without any intervening obstacle and the “Marist” strip is in fact outside the chain and wooden posts designed, it would appear, to signify the boundary. [23] And in the 4th Schedule to the Rules, para 1(a) provides: “ racecourse, racing rules, racing betting, each has the same meaning ascribed to it under Section 5 of the Racing Act 2003” And Section 5 describes a racecourse as being land and premises used for race meetings. [24] “Premises” has the usual meaning of a “house or building together with its land and outbuildings occupied by a business or considered in an official context.” An essential element is “occupation” of a site or land. So for example, to be “escorted off the premises” is to be taken away from them or the composite locality. Various entities can “share” premises or sites, eg day care centres and facilities for the elderly. Indeed the overhead photo/map illustrates that other entities share the Spriggens Park premises – the infield is owned by the council but is clearly part of the premises. [25] The sole issue is whether a person who is warned off can enter onto any part of the land or premises where a meeting or trial is being held. It does not avail Mr Cole to argue that some other entity such as the Marist Rugby Club might have title to part of the site used for racing. The test is not who might or might not have some legal interest in the land or premises but whether there was entry into any part of the land or premises that is being used, in the context of this charge, for the holding of a race meeting. It is quite common for there to be joint occupiers of sites or land used for race meetings, or be subject to joint (or no) interests with sports clubs or others – for example playing fields club and changing rooms. The occupation of the site can vary depending on other factors – as Mr Cole himself seemed to think that when he said to the investigator that the Palmerston North Greyhound track and facilities, with the racetrack used by the harness racing track of Manawatu Harness Racing, would have no application to a warning off notice (although it seems he resiles from that now). The same example can be seen with Christchurch Greyhounds where racing is on the track inside the NZ Metropolitan Harness track at the raceway known as Addington raceway for both Codes, and Forbury Park Raceway in Dunedin where both harness and greyhound race meetings are held, and the only three code facility in New Zealand is at Ascot Park In Invercargill where Thoroughbred, Harness, and Greyhound Clubs share the same site and grounds. The situation where there are joint harness and greyhound codes sharing and using the same racecourse facilities on the same day /meeting (obviously not the same racing surfaces), along with the other examples, highlights what is the clear intent of the Rules, namely the status of, or who owns or has a legal interest in, the facility is not relevant if it is it is proven that there was entry onto those premises during a meeting conducted by a Code to which its particular Rule applied. [26] Crucially, the secure Kennel Block at Hatrick, identified to us by Mr Cole, is NOT within any land leased or owned by the Greyhound Club, but it is adjacent and unquestionably premises used for the purpose of racing and must form part of the premises under the Rules. Otherwise, Mr Cole’s statement to us that “I believe that only if you own it you can warn off”, cannot make sense. [27] We find that Mr Cole, upon being warned off, immediately sought to find a way to subvert and ignore the requirement of the notice. He should have read and understood the clear rule. His attempt to introduce an intricate and technical justification is sophisticated, but futile. We do not accept his claim that he was genuine in his stated belief. He was either deliberately blind to the Rule or, knowing of it, chose to find a way to flout it. PENALTY [28] Mr Irving submitted that Mr Cole is in charge (although his wife holds the trainer’s licence), of a very substantial Greyhound training and racing operation. There appears to be no case in recent memory of breaching a warning off notice in any of the three racing codes. He submitted that the event on 7 June 2019 shows Mr Cole entering the raceway on four occasions over a 20-minute period and it was not an isolated “one off” incident. He emphasised sentencing principles and referred to matters of aggravation, surrounding the offence, and mitigation (no previous charges and a very late acceptance of liability – although only to a very limited extent). He submitted that a fine, even if substantial, would have little or no effect on Mr Cole given the size and nature of his operation. He submitted that a short period (six weeks) of disqualification was necessary to deter him and others in the industry that failure to comply with serious official directives will not be tolerated. [29] On Mr Cole’s behalf it was contended that anything more severe than a fine was not proportionate to his breach – to disqualify, even for a short period would be draconian. He contended that there was only “a very minor breach, 2-3 metres inside the boundary fence.” As we have said we do not accept that as factually correct. He contended that the breach arose only through “his misplaced perception” of the law and had no consequences to anyone. We do not accept a claim to “mistake” as mitigation. Mr Cole set out to find what he thought was a way around the warning off, and as a senior, experienced person in the Code must have known what the Rules say, and if he did not then this reflects adversely on his performance of his obligations. [30] Mr Cole has exhibited no remorse or genuine appreciation of his actions. Very late acceptance of the charge – but minimising the total facts – does not signify genuine remorse. Indeed, in many of his responses to us and the RIU he sought to blame the authorities. We do not accept that any genuine mistake was made on his part so as to be a mitigating factor. As we have said, he deliberately sought to find a way to subvert or get around the notice. He, and others, need to be deterred from flouting the Rules of Greyhound Racing if the Code is to maintain its standing, reputation, and retain the confidence of its participants and the public. In this case we have concluded that a disqualification sanction would be too severe, A significant fine will suffice. But Mr Cole should understand that a more severe sanction might be likely to follow if there should be further activity by his flouting a warning off notice in breach of the Rules (wherever Greyhound meetings or trials are held). [31] We regard a starting point of $3000 as necessary. The only mitigating factor is Mr Cole’s previous good record. We all allow a 20% deduction for that. Mr Cole will understand the process regarding any order for costs. He must contribute to some, but not all of the costs incurred by the RIU and the JCA. We fix those at $1750 to be paid to the RIU and $750 to be paid to the JCA. [32] As a consequence Mr Cole is to pay (a) A fine of $2400 (b) Costs of $1750 to the RIU and $750 to the JCA Dated at Wellington this 14th day of August 2019 Hon J W Gendall QC T Utikere

yes and then he would go from holding to loose!

An Auckland horse trainer has been ordered to pay $372,000 after an accident which left his teenage employee tetraplegic. Stephen John McKee failed to enure the health and safety of a teenage girl he employed as a stable hand in November 2016, a ruling at the Auckland District Court found on Friday. The woman, believed to be 19-year-old Sophia Malthus, told Stuff in 2017 she had broken her neck in the accident, and lost all sensation below her collarbone The horse she was riding bolted while they galloped around a practice track, and gathered "more and more" speed before the force threw them off the track. The horse went through a fence, while Malthus landed on the track. Malthus had been training as a jockey at the stable, near Ardmore, for six months before the accident, but had never ridden a racing-fit racehorse. A Work Safe investigation found McKee, who had over 30 years experience in the industry, had not established whether the teenager was competent to ride a race horse. Head of specialist interventions Simon Humphries said the stable hand's riding ability should have been assessed on more "suitable" horses, and McKee should have been aware of the hazards and risks. "There was no formal training to monitor, supervise and progress from her stable hand to riding a racehorse. "This young woman's life has been drastically affected and the incident serves as a reminder to employers that they must always ensure staff are capable of the job at hand." Malthus previously told Stuff she did not hold a grudge against the horse, which had fully recovered from the accident. McKee was charged under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. He was fined $30,000 and ordered to pay reparations of $110,000 and $262,000 for consequential loss.

Na he's not "loose" but "holding"......

Yeah na Thomaas runs when it gets too challenging.

Pot kettle. You post a heap of pseudo-science and the moment someone points out to you that the interpretation of the data is false you introduce avoidance tactics. So to reiterate: Thomaas can you elucidate a bit more on your findings based on the treadmill results posted. I like you to translate those findings to the real world handicapping scenario. I'll give you a hint - the difference in weight between the two jockeys used was 20lbs or 9kg's. Interesting that there was no statistical significant difference between the readings.

Thomaas can you elucidate a bit more on your findings based on the treadmill results posted. I like you to translate those findings to the real world handicapping scenario. I'll give you a hint - the difference in weight between the two jockeys used was 20lbs or 9kg's. Interesting that there was no statistical significant difference between the readings.

You talk crap Thomaas. Trainers only roll out the "holding" excuse AFTER the race or at the next race when there is a reversal of form. How many of these trainers scratch because it's "holding"?

I don't think so - once again you are taking the "opinion" of SOME trainers, extoling it as FACT and extrapolating to included ALL!!!! The point is you can't quantitatively tell if a track is "holding or loose" - because if you could then the trainers you quote would have scratched their horses to benefit punters. GO figure why they didn't!

View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of race 7, Piako Mitsubishi Amateurs 1600, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638 (3)(b)(ii). The Informant, Mr Jones, alleged that Mr Wenn used the whip excessively prior to the 100 metres when riding KEEPELLA HEIGHTS. Mr Wenn said that he understood the Rule and confirmed ...View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of race 7, Piako Mitsubishi Amateurs 1600, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638 (3)(b)(ii). The Informant, Mr Jones, alleged that Ms McIlroy used the whip excessively on a horse out of contention when riding BARB DWYER. Ms McIlroy said that she understood the Rule and confirmed ...View the full article

My personal opinion is that the weight spread isn't enough to achieve the handicappers objective of equalising chance. The female allowance further hampers the handicapper from achieving that objective. Trainers always find something to complain about be it "holding vs loose" or "too much weight" - very few look at themselves and their actions with regard to their horses performance. There seems to be an inverse relationship between trainers who complain about other factors and their success rate.

That's ludicrous!! I suppose you are not allowed to slap the reins across the backside either! Have boring poles with prickers been banned?

Winston Peters went to war with Treasury to secure the repeal of a tax on the racing industry. Peters, the Racing Minister, was able to scrap the betting levy, a 4 per cent tax on betting profits as part of 2019's Wellbeing Budget. Treasury pushed back firmly on the idea, saying it was concerned an analysis of the "wellbeing impacts" of scrapping the tax did not "acknowledge the potential for increased gambling harm if the racing industry grows and gambling winnings increase". It was also concerned that getting rid of the tax would create "significant" cost and could lead to other taxes on the gambling industry being repealed. But it appears Treasury was overruled, with a paper noting Peters was "firm in his views on repealing the levy" and proposing a compromise, which was also rejected. Peters announced the repeal of the levy in May when opening the New Zealand Bloodstock Karaka May Sale in Auckland. He said it would allow the industry to compete on a level playing field with countries like Australia. "For this reason the Government will repeal the current betting levy that is taken from racing and sporting gambling profits," Peters said. "By repealing the levy, this money will no longer flow to the Crown – it will instead be retained by the racing industry for the development of the racing industry," he said. Peters also said that part of the money that would be saved by axing the levy would be set aside for initiatives that would reduce harm from gambling. Peters has a long history of opposing the levy. In 2006, when Peters was Racing Minister under Helen Clark, he was able to negotiate a reduction in the levy from 20 per cent to just 4 per cent - again saying the reduction would revitalise the racing industry. Treasury advised the Government that the benefits of that earlier reduction were unclear, having not been "evaluated or outlined". Every budget, Treasury produces screeds of documents analysing the financial implications of Ministers' bids for Government funding or tax cuts. This year those documents also included details about the wellbeing implications of ministers' policies, as part of the Government's shift towards Wellbeing Budgets. It's not uncommon for Ministers to disagree with Treasury's advice if they themselves hold a strong view that a policy should go ahead. It appears the main concerns with scrapping the levy were financial. In 2018, it netted $15 million of revenue for the Crown. Scrapping the levy would work out to be a $60 million cost over four years, which is the standard amount of time Government budgets allocate funding for. But there were concerns the cost would be much higher if other players in the gambling sector eye a repeal of taxes on their own businesses. Treasury feared similar taxes on gaming machines and casinos could also be repealed or reduced. The Government made $312 million from these taxes last year - repealing the taxes would cost $1.2 billion over the four-year period covered by the budget. But Peters made his views clear to Treasury, which said that it "understood the Minister for Racing is firm in his views on repealing the levy". It proposed a compromise: reducing, halving the tax from 4 per cent of gambling profits to just 2 per cent. But Peters rejected this as well. The final policy is to phase out the tax entirely over the next three years. Peters was unavailable for comment.

Fiction?

Exactly Curious - this article is purely theoretical using OTHER data to develop a hypothesis that hasn't been tested experimentantly. Aside from the writer being a poor speller - incite vs insight! Of course one would expect some difference when you put 15% extra weight on a horse i.e. a jockey and saddle. However the article incorrectly extrapolates this out to infer that an extra 5lbs will make a significant difference. With no proof I might add. It is obvious Thomaas studied classical art and literature as opposed to science!

Na but I'm guessing you were the class talker who failed maths.

As for The Gordonian - up in class, 5kg drop in weight back from 2200m to 2000m to 1800m. Yeah na nothing to do with "holding vs loose"....geez I thought you would have been all over it considering the drop in weight and drop in distance. Aren't they two of your theories?

No both are theories with no statistical data analysis that I've seen to back them up.

3L from the winner in an R82 where the handicapper deemed he should drop 2 rating points. Hardly a pointer to "good form." Maybe the trainer thought that the race was a better option than a "gallop" during the week in training. Hence the "holding" ground excuse.