Auckland Race 2 30/11 protest

[Chief Stipe]

21 hours ago, holy ravioli said:

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

 

There is no evidence of that and the Feds didn't act as if there was.

21 hours ago, holy ravioli said:

what you were 'told' is hearsay.

 

1. hearsay - gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth. rumor, rumour. scuttlebutt, gossip, comment - a report (often malicious) about the behavior of other people;

By definition hearsay is something heard from someone not connected or there talking about someone else.  I can assure you my source isn't hearsay.  Think about that.

21 hours ago, holy ravioli said:

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

 

It's not opinion or spurious - they are facts!

 

21 hours ago, holy ravioli said:

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.

 

That's rubbish even you have said (although hearsay and off the record) that the jockey didn't think there was anything in it.  It was left up to the Feds to make a decision which ultimately they do.  

Would you have preferred the Rogie approach where he talks the ears off everyone to present his case often on behalf of the jockey?

I reviewed the video this morning and I tend to agree with those that have the opinion the Feds made the wrong decision.  Looking at the head on the beaten horse had every chance to get past the filly.  He actually moved out at least twice before the filly did!  He only got bumped inside the last 100m when he wasn't making any headway.  In OZ in my opinion they wouldn't have demoted the filly.

[holy ravioli]

At least you concede that the relegation was the wrong call.

I am pretty sure a protest under these circumstances would have ZERO chance of being upheld in Sydney or Melbourne.

btw..the 'spurious allegation was in relation to your statements relevance to the inquiry.

 

These 'feds' need to lift their game.

They are just another example of the old boy network that contributes to the continuing decline of racing in NZ.

Best suggestion I've seen  so far re protests, was having a NRL type system,with no input from connections or jockeys.

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

At least you concede that the relegation was the wrong call.

I am pretty sure a protest under these circumstances would have ZERO chance of being upheld in Sydney or Melbourne.

 

Never said otherwise.  If you read all my posts on the issue I pointed out the relevant rule used in other jurisdictions which if adhered to the filly wouldn't have been relegated.

13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

These 'feds' need to lift their game.

 

Agree totally.

13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

They are just another example of the old boy network that contributes to the continuing decline of racing in NZ.

 

I disagree it isn't an issue of "networks" it is an issue of competency.

14 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

At least you concede that the relegation was the wrong call.

I am pretty sure a protest under these circumstances would have ZERO chance of being upheld in Sydney or Melbourne.

btw..the 'spurious allegation was in relation to your statements relevance to the inquiry.

 

These 'feds' need to lift their game.

They are just another example of the old boy network that contributes to the continuing decline of racing in NZ.

Best suggestion I've seen  so far re protests, was having a NRL type system,with no input from connections or jockeys.

Which in this case is what happened.  I understand the view of both the jockey and Mr Ellis was that it was like kissing your sister i.e. "nothing in it."

[holy ravioli]

Mr Ellis would say that...wouldn't he!

Btw where are the reports/vids...get directed to loveracing.co....can't find a thing!

[Chief Stipe]

[Chief Stipe]

https://loveracing.nz/RaceInfo/48532/2/Race-Detail.aspx

[curious]

13 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Mr Ellis would say that...wouldn't he!

Btw where are the reports/vids...get directed to loveracing.co....can't find a thing!

Here's the JCA report hr. http://www.jca.org.nz/race-days/auckland-rc-thoroughbred-racing-30-11-2019/auckland-rc-30-november-2019-r-2-instigating-a-protest-chair-mr-a-dooley/?query={"portal_type": ["OldSiteHearing", "Hearing", "NonRaceDayHearing", "ProtestHearingDecision", "RequestRulingHearing"], "SearchableText": ""}

[Kopia]

Some people are missing the point here. There is no doubt that there was interference towards the end of the race. You don't need extra films, rear/front etc etc to determine that. Its not disputed. What IS disputed is whether the 2nd horse would have beaten the first horse if that interference didn't occur. Most rational race viewers would say no. The winner had it all over the 2nd horse, and would have won by more if it didn't run about.

The most concerning aspect of this matter is this. The inept j.c.a. did not question the rider of the 2nd horse when they had every right to question her. Irrespective of what Ellis said, it is clear in a hearing like this that the j.c.a. call the shots, not owners/trainers/riders/syndicate managers etc, That they chose not to question Sam Collett is incredible. So what did they rely on to make their decision? It seems that Mr Oatham, the Stipe, has bamboozled them into the decison to change the placings. That is disgraceful. No wonder many racing professionals ( read trainers, other riders ) are totally pissed off over this. Supposedly 'independent'  j.c.a. told what to do by Ellis, then change placings in a race when befuddled by a stipe. Read it and weep. I've had some racing 'experts' here in Sydney look at this. They just laughed.

[muzenza365]

1 hour ago, Kopia said:

Some people are missing the point here. There is no doubt that there was interference towards the end of the race. You don't need extra films, rear/front etc etc to determine that. Its not disputed. What IS disputed is whether the 2nd horse would have beaten the first horse if that interference didn't occur. Most rational race viewers would say no. The winner had it all over the 2nd horse, and would have won by more if it didn't run about.

The most concerning aspect of this matter is this. The inept j.c.a. did not question the rider of the 2nd horse when they had every right to question her. Irrespective of what Ellis said, it is clear in a hearing like this that the j.c.a. call the shots, not owners/trainers/riders/syndicate managers etc, That they chose not to question Sam Collett is incredible. So what did they rely on to make their decision? It seems that Mr Oatham, the Stipe, has bamboozled them into the decison to change the placings. That is disgraceful. No wonder many racing professionals ( read trainers, other riders ) are totally pissed off over this. Supposedly 'independent'  j.c.a. told what to do by Ellis, then change placings in a race when befuddled by a stipe. Read it and weep. I've had some racing 'experts' here in Sydney look at this. They just laughed.

Dead right,i have calls from Australia,saying this could not happen,but it did and only morons like Thomass who will not give as a clue as to his expertise on matters regarding interference/relegation's on racing matters,continues to come up with the same result that Ray Charles would agree with,but he does does have an excuse,but Thomass must have the same impairment.

[Weasel]

Kopia says: There is no doubt that there was interference towards the end of the race. 

Mustelld says: You concede there was interference late in the race.  The key questions are: which horse started the interference? How severe was it? 

I only saw the head-on once (on-course) and thought it was obvious that Taroni began the interference by moving out and taking BLR's line, actually shunting LR sideways 2 or 3 strides from the post. 
Taroni led by about 1 length at the 100m and by a head at the finish. On that basis the Stewards made the right decision.

Having said that, the JCA should not have allowed the process to be dictated by Ellis and should have questioned Sam Collett.

MM

[muzenza365]

Wrong,the reason the margin was a head was the fact the Little D was doing her best to keep the horse going straight.

No doubt  Taroni did move out when looking at the big screen but that was within 20m of the finish line and the 2nd had been hard ridden prior to this and was not taking any ground off the winner.

The main rule to adhere to here is ,would have the 2nd horse beaten the winner,I say no and that is why in my opinion this was the wrong decision.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Weasel said:

I only saw the head-on once (on-course) and thought it was obvious that Taroni

I suggest you have another look at the video.  It is posted earlier in this Topic.

[Chief Stipe]

30 minutes ago, muzenza365 said:

Wrong,the reason the margin was a head was the fact the Little D was doing her best to keep the horse going straight.

 

Yep the filly was definitely distracted by something infield.  Was on one rein the last 100m and not ridden out. 

34 minutes ago, muzenza365 said:

The main rule to adhere to here is ,would have the 2nd horse beaten the winner,I say no and that is why in my opinion this was the wrong decision.

The 2nd horse had every chance to pass her before the last 20m but couldn't.  The only time there was contact was a little bump 20m before the line.  The filly never took the other horses line because if you look on the video the 2nd horse was equally as guilty at running out. Until the last little bit you could have put two horses between them!

 

 

[holy ravioli]

 

Yep the filly was definitely distracted by something infield.  Was on one rein the last 100m and not ridden out. 

The 2nd horse had every chance to pass her before the last 20m but couldn't.  The only time there was contact was a little bump 20m before the line.  The filly never took the other horses line because if you look on the video the 2nd horse was equally as guilty at running out. Until the last little bit you could have put two horses between them!

 

 

yet...'  In OZ in my opinion they would have demoted the filly. '....hard to fathom...?‍♂️

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

yet...'  In OZ in my opinion they would have demoted the filly. '....hard to fathom...?‍♂️

I meant "wouldn't have" - I've since corrected that sentence to be consistent with all my other comments.

[holy ravioli]

 

I meant "wouldn't have" - I've since corrected that sentence to be consistent with all my other comments.

be more careful in the future...I'm keeping a close eye on you and any somersaults.?

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, holy ravioli said:

be more careful in the future...I'm keeping a close eye on you and any somersaults.?

I prefer back flips they score higher points!

[All The Aces]

From what I have heard Thomas is right in what actually happened surrounding the enquiry but he is incorrect in that the gelding would have beaten the filly home. She always had him covered.   

[Yankiwi]

On 4/12/2019 at 1:12 PM, holy ravioli said:

They are just another example of the old boy network that contributes to the continuing decline of racing in NZ.

I haven't watched the race - I have no interest in the gallops.

That said, HR's point above is paramount to fixing anything in the three codes.

A punter is powerless after they've parted with hard earned. It's up to the RIU to uphold integrity & that's exactly what they need to do. I was involved in the Greyhound code for a short time & ran for the hills once I began to click how corrupt the powers were.

One trainer scratched their dog a bit late & was fined $300. Yet one week prior another trainer committed fraud, was fined $300 & straight back to business as usual straight after the hearing.

Really?

 

 

 

[Chief Stipe]

16 hours ago, All The Aces said:

From what I have heard Thomas is right in what actually happened surrounding the enquiry

Hearsay.  But regardless what Thomaas originally wrote was a fantasy made up in his own mind which proceeded to espouse as the facts.  He wrote as if he was directly quoting the participants statements - which he wasn't.

In any event the debate should be on the process and the judiciary - which one could legitimately argue is flawed.

16 hours ago, All The Aces said:

She always had him covered.

I agree.  

[Chief Stipe]

Stewards Vision of the race

 

 

[All The Aces]

Stipendiary stewards and JCA get it horribly wrong at Ellerslie

by Brian de Lore
Published 6th December 2019

Saturday at Ellerslie saw one of the worst decisions seen on a New Zealand racecourse for some years when stipendiary stewards reversed the first and second placings in race two, the Executive Travel Maiden Two-year-Old over 1100 metres.

To add insult to injury, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) ratified the mistake by rubber-stamping the decision – bringing into question both the competence of the JCA officials on the day and the entire Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) structure which has in the past been the subject of criticism from key stakeholders.

Protests, upheld or dismissed, race interference, jockey penalties, etc., isn’t a domain to where The Optimist would typically venture. Too many grey areas exist, and too often, decisions are made on narrow margins of a controversial and debatable nature which often polarises racegoers. It’s better to stay away from the debate in those cases, and this blog has always attempted to deal with facts and make a neutrally fair evaluation.

It wouldn’t be an easy job being a stipendiary steward. Race day responsibilities are wide-ranging, and the requirements would generate a reasonable degree of pressure, often thought to be the reason why stipes are rarely seen to smile. Rule 204 of the Rules of Racing says:

“The functions of Stipendiary Stewards and Investigators are to: (a) maintain the integrity of Races and racing; (b) regulate and oversee all Race day matters and all matters related to Races and racing; (c) investigate potential breaches of the Rules; (d) assist in relation to licensing matters; (e) generally, to do all things necessary so that Races and racing are conducted efficiently and with integrity and in accordance with these Rules.”

But Saturday’s episode was blatant. It was a clear-cut error of judgment; should a protest even have been lodged? Grandstand critics are never wrong, and from the safety of a green leather lazy-boy chair in front of the big flat screen, I watched the race live. When the siren went, my thinking was that it would take only around 60 seconds to reach a ‘protest dismissed’ verdict.

How wrong can you be! Incomprehensibly the stewards and JCA went with it and turfed-out first-past-the-post horse Taroni and promoted Bordeaux Le Rouge into first place. Since the live viewing, I have revisited the video replay on the Love Racing website no fewer than a dozen times.

On every occasion, the same conclusion was reached. The two horses briefly came together right on the winning post, but Bordeaux Le Rouge was never ever going to run past Taroni and win the race. Had Taroni kept a straight line it would have won by more than a length.

So why did the stipes change the result and the JCA ratify it? Firstly, Rule 642 of racing says that to change the result: “the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.”

In my view, that criteria had not been met – nowhere close to it. Could I be so wrong, after all, I had been studying races for over 50 years since the days of such greats as Palisade, Eiffel Tower, Kumei, Weenell, Daryl’s Joy, Jazz, Star Belle, Laramie, Royal Bid, Piko, Game Call, Spray Doone, Koral, Lindred, Teak, Pep and Brazil to name a few – what a fabulous era of great horses. Perhaps the years have dimmed my vision and fogged my judgment?

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet.” – Nigel Tiley

The only way to determine this was to consult others. As a top-class ex-jockey and now a highly experienced trainer, Nigel Tiley was my first call. Nigel also sits on the committee of the Trainers’ Association Committee and is the trainers’ representative on the NZTR Members’Council, and few horsemen would be better credentialled to review the incident.

Nigel said: “On Saturday’s decision, the fact that I had two phone calls from Australia questioning what the rules were in New Zealand. These were two experienced race watchers who could not get their heads around the reversing of the placings. They were both adamant that under their judicial system the protest would not have been upheld.

“But under our rules, it also should have been dismissed. We have discussed it in a conference call of the Trainers’ Association Executive, so I can’t speak on behalf of the Association, but I have spoken to a lot of racing people, and it’s 100 percent unanimous that the stipes made the wrong decision. I was appalled.

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet,” concluded Nigel Tiley.

Next, I phoned Racehorse Trainers’ Association President Tony Pike who was also willing to express his concern at the outcome of the race.  

“I had no problem with the siren going off,” commented Tony, “but it should have been dismissed. There’s a lot of backlash out there and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is.

“I was on-course in Perth watching on TV and didn’t see the head-on film until later but I was disappointed with the process in the room. The stipes shouldn’t be asking or assuming the connections are going to lodge the protest and when the connections didn’t lodge it, and they had to lodge it themselves and have gone down that path, they probably felt the need to uphold it.”

The process of which Tony Pike referred to went like this: In the hearing room, the Chairman John Oatham stated mistakenly that the connections of the second horse had lodged the protest. It was soon established that was not the case and that a protest would not be forthcoming from them, so the Stewards lodged it themselves. The siren sounding before the horses had returned to scale was also initiated by a steward, but Oatham was apparently not aware of that which raises a serious procedural question.

Other questions arising are: Was that initial mistake in the room a mitigating factor in making the final decision? Was the fact that Bordeaux Le Rouge was the hot favourite at $1.30 for the win a sub-conscious pressure on the stewards, and would that pressure not have been present had it been a $20 shot? No one is suggesting that this was anything but an honest mistake, but it should be noted the loser here has no grounds for appeal.

“My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races.” – Tony Pike

Further second-hand anecdotal information received is suggesting that not all four stewards officiating agreed with the decision, but that cannot be confirmed. The same source also said that Bordeaux Le Rouge’s jockey Sam Collett was not questioned at all.     

Tony Pike further commented: “My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races, and they have gone and upheld it. They are obviously intelligent people, but on the subject of reading races, they’re not really qualified.

“Mistakes are made and this may be a one-off case, but we have to make sure the process and the rules are adhered to – the decision by the JCA was blatantly wrong. It was a lower-level race, and the ramifications were not great, but racing is lacking confidence in getting good decisions, especially from the JCA, and there will come a time and place when this will happen in a significantly bigger race with far greater ramifications.”

The Stewards Report Said:

“Following the race a protest was lodged by the Stipendiary Stewards alleging interference by the 1st placed horse TARONI (D Johnson) to the 2nd placed horse BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett) inside the final 100 metres. After viewing films and hearing submissions the Judicial Committee upheld the protest relegating TARONI to 2nd placing. The final placings now read – 1 BORDEAUX LE ROUGE 1st, 8 TARONI 2nd, 6 DRAGON QUEEN 3rd, 5 TARGHEE 4th. BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett replaced T Harris) – Promoted to 1 st placing after suffering interference inside the final 100 metres. TARONI (D Johnson) – Relegated from 1st placing after causing interference inside the final 100 metres.”

Interestingly, if Danielle Johnston had failed to keep her mount straight enough to stop the second horse from winning and the interference was severe enough to warrant a change of placings, one might have thought that Johnson would at the very least received a warning if not a fine or suspension. But not a mention.

Further to that, the Stewards Report above is very sheepish in its wording. It states a reversal of placings takes place but doesn’t go as far as saying that, “in the opinion of the stewards the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first-mentioned horse.”

Everyone with an interest in the judicial system of racing should review the race themselves and make a judgment, Depending on your opinion, you may have a future on the JCA panel because they are clearly having problems with people who boast a series of letters behind their names.

 

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, All The Aces said:

when stipendiary stewards reversed the first and second placings in race two, the Executive Travel Maiden Two-year-Old over 1100 metres.

To add insult to injury, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) ratified the mistake by rubber-stamping the decision

De Lore has technically got that wrong.  The Stipes lodged a protest they don't make a decision.  The decision is made by the JCA.

 

9 hours ago, All The Aces said:

The process of which Tony Pike referred to went like this: In the hearing room, the Chairman John Oatham stated mistakenly that the connections of the second horse had lodged the protest. It was soon established that was not the case and that a protest would not be forthcoming from them, so the Stewards lodged it themselves. The siren sounding before the horses had returned to scale was also initiated by a steward, but Oatham was apparently not aware of that which raises a serious procedural question.

That's exactly what I was told happened by one of the participants.

[holy ravioli]

So what role do the stipes play in inquiries then?

Surely not just lodging protests or pushing the button!

[Chief Stipe]

23 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

So what role do the stipes play in inquiries then?

Surely not just lodging protests or pushing the button!

My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the Stipes are much the same as the Crown Prosecutor with the JCA being the judiciary.