Canterbury JC 2 October 2010 - R1 (request for a ruling)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr M Williamson, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  N/A

Information No:  41713 - Request for a Ruling

Meeting:  Canterbury Jockey Club

Date:  2 October 2010

Venue:  Canterbury Park

Race: 1

Rule No:  632

Judicial Committee:  KG Hales, Chairman - J Millar, Committee Member

Plea:  N/A

Also Present:  Stipendiary Stewards J McLaughlin and M Davidson, Ms S Payne, Starter, Mr B Hibberd, Assistant Starter and Ms DS Johnson, Rider of “Calgacus”

DECISION:

Following the running of Race 1, Stipendiary Steward Mr M Williamson, requested a ruling with regard to an incident at the start. 

He stated in the information requesting a ruling as follows:

“”Calgacus” (D Johnson) was denied a fair start due to a mechanical failure.”

The request was made pursuant to Rule 632 which reads as follows:

“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 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 of its own accord, the Judicial Committee may declare such horse to be a non-starter.”

Mr Williamson advised the hearing that Ms S Payne, the Starter, had activated the electronic start but that the gates failed to open.  She accordingly signalled to her assistant starter, Mr B Hibberd, who was in a position at the end of the starting gates, adjacent to Stall 1, to activate the start manually.

However, what Mr Hibberd did not realise, because he was not in a position whereby he could see, that “Calgacus” was rearing in its stall.  Thus, at the time the gates opened, “Calgacus” was rearing, and missed the start by at least 3 lengths. 

Ms Johnson, the rider of “Calgacus”, told the hearing that she had taken hold of part of the stall to steady herself, and as a consequence she was not ready for a start. 

“Calgacus” finished in seventh place. 

Ms Payne and Mr Hibberd both confirmed what Mr Williamson had outlined. 

Mr Hibberd thought that there may have been up to a 10 second lapse of time between Ms Payne attempting to activate the start by electronic means, and him activating the start manually.  He further said that if he had been aware of the circumstances, he would not have released the starting gates.

We find as follows:

a)      There was a failure of the electronic starting mechanism;

b)      That the starting gates were then opened manually by Mr Hibberd, Assistant Starter;

c)      That Mr Hibberd was not in a position whereby he could see the horses in the starting gates when activating the manual start;

d)      That “Calgacus” reared in the time frame between Ms Payne notifying Mr Hibberd of the electronic failure, and Mr Hibberd activating the start manually;

e)      As a consequence of “Calgacus” rearing, Ms Johnson was not ready for a start;

f)        “Calgacus” was a favoured runner;

g)      “Calgacus” finished in seventh place. 

As a consequence of our findings, we are bound to conclude, in terms of Rule 632 that because of the events which occurred in the intervening period between the failure of the electronic system and the opening of the starting gates manually, that “Calgacus” was denied a fair start and that such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that horse.

DECISION

“Calgacus” is therefore declared a non-starter.