Forbury Park TC - 13 July 2010 - R 8

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION - INSTIGATING A PROTEST

Informant:  Mr N Ydgren Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr K Dance

Information No: 14553

Meeting:  Forbury Park TC

Date:  13 July 2010

Venue:  Forbury Park Raceway

Race:  8

Rule Nos: 862(2); 1003(2)(a); Racing Starting Procedures

Judicial Committee:  Geoff Hall, Chairman – Alan Dennis, Committee Member 

Plea:  N/A

Also Present:  Mr B Barclay, driver of BENHAR BRAT

CHARGES:

This was a protest by Mr Ydgren against horse number 11, BENHAR BRAT, placed 1^st by the Judge on the ground that the horse started from the incorrect barrier position. He sought the disqualification of BENHAR BRAT pursuant to Rule 1003(2)(a). Reference was also made to clause 13 of the Racing Starting Procedures, which states at (i) “Where there is one line the unruly horse or horses shall be placed on a second line on the extreme outside behind and clear of the front line horses.”

FACTS:

Judges placings were: 11, BENHAR BRAT; 3 GIPSY JAKE; 5 SHE HAS THE LOOK; 8 FALCONS COURAGE.  Margins were Nk, 1/2hd, 1/2L.

Mr Ydgren had Mr Allison demonstrate on two video angles that BENHAR BRAT, which had drawn 1 on the unruly mark, had started from behind the horse that had drawn barrier 5. He added that because there was some space between a few of the runners it was in fact closer to barrier 7 or 8. There were 9 horses on the front line. Mr Allison demonstrated that BENHAR BRAT was slow away and, when the field was in racing pattern, the horse had settled at the rear of the field, ahead of only the two horses that had broken from their gaits at the start.

When questioned by Mr Ydgren, Mr Allison stated that he believed that BENHAR BRAT had not gained an advantage and the fact that the horse had started from the incorrect barrier position had made no difference to the outcome of the race.

SUBMISSIONS:

Mr Ydgren emphasised that BENHAR BRAT should have started from the extreme outside of the track as required by the Racing Starting Procedures. However, he said the stipendiary stewards did not believe that the horse had gained an advantage by not so doing.

Mr Dance said he believed the starter was at fault in that he had let the field go when Mr Barclay was not in his correct position.

Mr Barclay said he was aware he was supposed to start wide on the track and had thought he had a discretion to determine just how wide.

REASON:

This is an unusual situation that has arisen. BENHAR BRAT has started from the unruly position (so was not in front of its mark), but has not started on the extreme outside as required by the starting procedures. However, all parties accept, and it is evident to this Committee, that BENHAR BRAT has not gained any advantage from starting from an incorrect position. Although the horse would have been closer to the two breaking horses, a clear path would still have been available to BENHAR BRAT. In the event, BENHAR BRAT was slow away and settled at the rear of the field, ahead of only the two breaking horses.

In Rule 862 there is a paragraph which states: “In addition to any other penalty which may be imposed upon a horse pursuant to Rule 1003 any horse which starts in contravention of this Rule shall be disqualified from that race.”

We note the particular placement of this provision as being after subsection (1) and the fact that that subsection refers to a horse starting in advance of its proper mark. In these circumstances, a horse could clearly be seen to gain an advantage and thus mandatory disqualification is understandable. The paragraph after Rule 862(1), if given a literal reading, would apply to both subsections of R 862 (it refers merely to “this Rule”, which encompasses both subsections (1) and (2)).  Nonetheless, we do not believe this is the intent of this Rule and we do not interpret it in this manner. We observe the difficulty would appear to be the result of the insertion of Rule 862(2) in 2002 without thought being given to the effect of the second paragraph in subsection (1). We recommend attention be given to the drafting of this Rule.

We believe that the general provision, Rule 1003, applies. We take note of the power that this Committee has under Rule 1003(2) which states: “Every horse which commits a breach of any Rule shall be liable to the following penalties: (a) to be disqualified or scratched from any race.” (The Rule does not state that the horse “shall be disqualified” for committing a breach of any Rule).

We are satisfied on the evidence that the horse BENHAR BRAT has started from the incorrect barrier position. There is no dispute as to that. But it would not be just to disqualify the horse because, as we have previously stated, it is accepted by the parties, and we find, that BENHAR BRAT has not gained an advantage through the breach of Rule 862(2) nor indeed is it likely that the result of the race would have been any different. If we were to interpret Rule 862 as requiring us to disqualify the horse, the connections would be adversely affected, as would the betting public. There is also the integrity of harness racing to be considered. We interpret Rules 862(2) and 1003(2) as conferring a discretion upon this Committee and we exercise this by refraining from amending the Judge’s placings.

DECISION:

The protest is dismissed. Dividends are to be paid as the horses crossed the line.

Geoff Hall                                 Alan Dennis

Chairman                                 Committee Member

14553