Auckland Race 2 30/11 protest

[curious]

I'm afraid you've got this one completely wrong Chief in the locked threads. Thomass is quite correct. Ellis over-ruled his trainer in proceeding with the protest and then spoke for his jockey advising she had nothing to say. That's a full stop. Atrocious in my view.

Submissions For Decision:

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest. At this juncture Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards would be the Informant and proceeded on that basis.

 

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

[Joe Bloggs]

Again, how many owners understand its the punter that is contributing to keeping this sunset industry afloat....and if that was indeed the situation on Saturday at Ellerslie, it illustrates the contempt some of these bigger operations have for the punter...and bravo to the stewards for proceeding with the inquiry...

[Weasel]

and bravo to the stewards for making the right decision. Taroni clearly impeded BLR by running out UNDER PRESSURE. Taroni was tiring quickly the last 50m and would've been run down imo if it had kept a straight line. The crucial evidence is the head-on video.

MM

Edited December 3, 2019 by Weasel

[Freda]

What seems to have been overlooked in the general discussion is that a horse is entitled to it's line of running. 

Whether or not there is direct contact, if it's line has been impeded or direction ' dictated ' by the wayward movement of another there are grounds for a change of placing. 

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, curious said:

I'm afraid you've got this one completely wrong Chief in the locked threads. Thomass is quite correct. Ellis over-ruled his trainer in proceeding with the protest and then spoke for his jockey advising she had nothing to say. That's a full stop. Atrocious in my view.

Submissions For Decision:

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest. At this juncture Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards would be the Informant and proceeded on that basis.

 

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

That's not what I've been told.  Either way Mr Ellis is entitled to take the action he did.

What I object to is Thomaas's fantasy narrative describing what happened.  It isn't even good satire.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

What seems to have been overlooked in the general discussion is that a horse is entitled to it's line of running. 

Whether or not there is direct contact, if it's line has been impeded or direction ' dictated ' by the wayward movement of another there are grounds for a change of placing. 

Perhaps but what if the international rule - "would the protesting horse withstanding the alleged interference been able to beat the winner?"  In this case I doubt it.

[Chief Stipe]

 

A change in the ARCI's interference policy could come to a possible vote after it was tabled at the previous Model Rules Committee meeting Aug. 8 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. A shift to Category 1 rules are listed on the agenda to be considered.

With the Category 1 standard, disqualifications would likely be more limited as DQs would occur only when it's determined that a horse who was interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse who caused the interference—if not for that foul. With the current Category 2 standard, if the stewards determine interference cost a fouled horse a better placing, the horse that interfered is disqualified and placed behind the horse or horses that it fouled.

The United States and Canada are among the few remaining countries operating under Category 2. The International Federation of Horseracing Authorities adopted Category 1 as its model in 2017.

[holy ravioli]

So the committee arrived at a decision WITHOUT being able to assess all relevant evidence.Very good.?

[curious]

16 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

That's not what I've been told.  Either way Mr Ellis is entitled to take the action he did.

What I object to is Thomaas's fantasy narrative describing what happened.  It isn't even good satire.

That's directly from the JCA report. You don't believe that?

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, curious said:

That's directly from the JCA report. You don't believe that?

I didn't say I believed it or not.  There are conflicting reports from those directly involved (which I've heard first hand from two people) and even from the Stipendiary Stewards.

Regardless if this is all it takes for the conspiricists to suck oxygen when there are far bigger issues in the industry then heaven help us.

BTW there is no evidence the Biden's were involved in the hearing!

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

So the committee arrived at a decision WITHOUT being able to assess all relevant evidence.Very good.?

That's their call. 

[holy ravioli]

 

That's their call. 

Not an inspiring one,especially in a democratic ...country.

[Fred]

56 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

That's not what I've been told.  Either way Mr Ellis is entitled to take the action he did.

 

What does Mr Ellis have to do with matters ? He is not the owning syndicate's  manager or the trainer of the horse.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Fred said:

What does Mr Ellis have to do with matters ? He is not the owning syndicate's  manager or the trainer of the horse.

Aside from Te Akau Stud having bred the horse it is raced by a Te Akau Syndicate named Te Akau Fine Red.  Isn't Mr Ellis the Chief at Te Akau?  I'd say he has every right.

 

[holy ravioli]

 

Aside from Te Akau Stud having bred the horse it is raced by a Te Akau Syndicate named Te Akau Fine Red.  Isn't Mr Ellis the Chief at Te Akau?  I'd say he has every right.

 

Grasping at straws there CS!Bred the horse ,not the Synd manager!!Unless  the manager and/or the jockey are deaf/mutes its hard to make a case for him being involved...at all.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Grasping at straws there CS!Bred the horse ,not the Synd manager!!Unless  the manager and/or the jockey are deaf/mutes its hard to make a case for him being involved...at all.

You are splitting hairs.  He who pays the bills has the final say.  Although that doesn't help me much on BOAY.  

You'll find if you bother to stretch your knowledge that Mr Ellis is a Director of Te Akau Stud and Te Akau Racing. 

Further did you know that anyone can lodge a protest?  (I don't think that rule has changed).

As for your democracy comment there isn't much democracy in a judicial system.

[holy ravioli]

Ahem...the people who are in the syndicate PAY the Bills.

Mr Ellis may well be a Director ,but this appears to be a case where the committee are cardboard cutouts ,captive to a 'don't you know who I am'...moment.. as you appear to be.

 

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Ahem...the people who are in the syndicate PAY the Bills.

 

You have no idea who is in the Syndicate.  You will also probably find that in the Syndicate Agreement/Contract that Mr Ellis and or Te Akau representatives have the say on racing and training matters.

14 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Mr Ellis may well be a Director ,but this appears to be a case where the committee are cardboard cutouts ,captive to a 'don't you know who I am'...moment.. as you appear to be.

 

LOL!  Far from it.  If you have followed my posts over the years about Te Akau you will find I have had a balanced view and have been critical at times.  I'm no sycophant and never will be.  Hence the way BOAY is run.

My issue was and still is that a certain individual gave a fantasy version of what happened and through inference and innuendo proceeded cast aspersions against Te Akau that were unfounded.

I'll make it clear there was no breach of the rules in terms of lodging the protest and the subsequent hearing.  If you are willing to remove the individuals from the debate and discuss the merits or otherwise of the "protest process" then feel free to do so.

[holy ravioli]

'You have no idea who is in the Syndicate.  You will also probably find that in the Syndicate Agreement/Contract that Mr Ellis and or Te Akau representatives have the say on racing and training matters. '

 

I do not need to know who is in the syndicate to know who pays !Do you dispute this?

 

Clearly you have not perused the Syndication agreement and are...GUESSING....it is an irrelevant consideration anyway.

[Chief Stipe]

29 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

I do not need to know who is in the syndicate to know who pays !Do you dispute this?

I don't see your point.  

30 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Clearly you have not perused the Syndication agreement and are...GUESSING....it is an irrelevant consideration anyway.

I haven't seen that particular Syndicate Agreement but I have seen others from professional syndicators and they are as I say.

[holy ravioli]

the point is(sledgehammer)...we know it costs to race a horse=the syndicate members PAY .

YOU-'He who pays the bills has the final say.'

ME-'Ahem...the people who are in the syndicate PAY the Bills.

YOU-'You have no idea who is in the Syndicate. '

 

Splitting hairs...indeed.

 

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

the point is(sledgehammer)...we know it costs to race a horse=the syndicate members PAY .

YOU-'He who pays the bills has the final say.'

ME-'Ahem...the people who are in the syndicate PAY the Bills.

YOU-'You have no idea who is in the Syndicate. '

 

Splitting hairs...indeed.

 

What's your beef?  What's your point?

[holy ravioli]

My point is.. not only was the decision wrong....the interference of DE in the proceedings ..made it...worse.

You maintain you spoke to 2 people involved and it was a straight forward case.Nothing to see here.

The jockey involved on the runner protesting has said(off the record)that she did not want to protest and the interference had no effect on the outcome.

What I see is a very shrewd and calculated process that had the desired outcome ,all the while deflecting and exonerating the main player.

Redaction of  who was the initial informant,refusal to co-operate in any examination of the circumstances by the party that stood to benefit,and an abdication of impartiality and acceptable integrity by the committee.

Deplorable and unacceptable.

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

My point is.. not only was the decision wrong....the interference of DE in the proceedings ..made it...worse.

 

That's your opinion that wasn't shared by the JCA.  There is no evidence to say Mr Ellis INACTION made it worse.  Whatever "worse" is.

 

6 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

You maintain you spoke to 2 people involved and it was a straight forward case.Nothing to see here.

 

 No I never wrote that I or those I spoke to said it was a "straight forward case."  What I said was that Thomaas's fantasy about what was said and done before the protest did not match what I was told.

 

8 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

The jockey involved on the runner protesting has said(off the record)that she did not want to protest and the interference had no effect on the outcome.

 

I'm not interested in hearsay or "off the record" comments.  If that is what she said then that concurs with what Mr Ellis said.  The JCA still had the option of calling the jockey to give evidence.  However would it have changed the outcome?  I doubt it unless they applied the rule as Australia does that "withstanding the interference the second horse would not have beaten the winner."

15 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

What I see is a very shrewd and calculated process that had the desired outcome ,all the while deflecting and exonerating the main player.

 

That's your opinion.  I don't agree.

 

17 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Redaction of  who was the initial informant,refusal to co-operate in any examination of the circumstances by the party that stood to benefit,and an abdication of impartiality and acceptable integrity by the committee.

 

Feel free to criticise the process and those that run it.  The connections of the horse behaved entirely as they are entitled to.  In that regard there has been some fantastical interpretations written which are far from the facts.

As I said feel free to debate about the process and those that run it.

[holy ravioli]

'That's your opinion that wasn't shared by the JCA.  There is no evidence to say Mr Ellis INACTION made it worse.  Whatever "worse" is.

'worse' is the suggestion of undue ..'influence'.

What I said was that Thomaas's fantasy about what was said and done before the protest did not match what I was told.

what you were 'told' is hearsay.

'Aside from Te Akau Stud having bred the horse it is raced by a Te Akau Syndicate named Te Akau Fine Red.  Isn't Mr Ellis the Chief at Te Akau?  I'd say he has every right. '

this is your opinion and a very spurious stance,given the circumstances.

 

there is a common saying....'nothing to hide,nothing to..fear'.

As TA and its principals have a high profile in the industry one would think/expect them to show leadership,transparency and moral virtue in matters such as this.

DE lowered the cone of silence'...not a good look at all from an integrity perspective.And yes that is my opinion,and I suggest ...the majority one.

'