Ellerslie relegation last week - The Optimist

[PWJ]

Those of you who follow my comp would know that I went ahead and posted the result based on across the line placings based on how frivolous I thought any appeal would be. That the connections of Bordeaux La Rouge never even lodged a protest or that the horse's rider Sam Collett was never questioned it seemed a crazy outcome. Brian de Lore's take on this follows:

Stipendiary stewards and JCA get it horribly wrong at Ellerslie

by Brian de Lore
Published 6^th 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.

[curious]

https://loveracing.nz/Common/SystemTemplates/Modal/Video.aspx?v=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fembed%2faEy83L6XK1s&i=%2fCommon%2fImage.ashx%3fw%3d565%26h%3d314%26a%3d1%26o%3d1%26z%3d1%26bg%3deeeeee%26p%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fimg.youtube.com%2fvi%2faEy83L6XK1s%2f0.jpg&r=Stewards' Vision Race 2 - EXECUTIVE TRAVEL 1100&rs=1

[curious]

34 minutes ago, PWJ said:

 That the connections of Bordeaux La Rouge never even lodged a protest or that the horse's rider Sam Collett was never questioned it seemed a crazy outcome.

That's not entirely correct PWJ. From the JCA report:

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.

Edited December 5, 2019 by curious

[PWJ]

42 minutes ago, curious said:

That's not entirely correct PWJ. From the JCA report:

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.

Having nothing to say and not being questioned are not the same thing. I have never seen an inquiry in Australia where the jockey of the horse allegedly affected was not asked whether their chances were affected. This is different to declining to "comment"

[curious]

1 minute ago, PWJ said:

Having nothing to say and not being questioned are not the same thing. I have never seen an inquiry in Australia where the jockey of the horse allegedly affected was not asked whether their chances were affected. This is different to declining to "comment"

Yes, I completely agree PJ that the JCA should still have interviewed Sam not just accepted Mr Ellis's statement. It's bizarre.

[PWJ]

24 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes, I completely agree PJ that the JCA should still have interviewed Sam not just accepted Mr Ellis's statement. It's bizarre.

Agreed. I almost get the impression they (Collett & Ellis) were somewhat embarrassed by the protest. Reminds me of years ago when the Stewards (club committee people) would do anything to get a favourite promoted to a win to help turnover !

[Maximus]

For me the fascinating aspect of Brian De Lore's lengthy piece here is that he fails to mention AT ALL the name of David Ellis and the influence he had over the protest and process of resolving it. The overarching issue of INTEGRITY is paramount, so why did BDL fail to address the matter of David Ellis in effect gagging Sam Collett and the Stipes failing to ask her any questions?.

Taroni did not keep a straight line - not a problem until it sideswipes the horse trying to get past it. As VvD notes, if BLR had been inside Taroni, BLR would've won the race. The onus is on Taroni ()and jockey to run straight. 

And even though in Oz they'd've dismissed the protest, they would've upheld the protest in Kentucky (!) but let's not go there!!

MM

[Hesi]

Would Ellis have been so quick to intervene, had the owners of Taroni not been such valued business associates, had they been for instance connections he had had unsavoury dealings with in the past, or people who owed him money.

Of course we all know the answer

INTEGRITY is paramount

BDL has missed a very important part of this saga totally.....I wonder why

Ellis has in fact undermined the system, yet he fails to mention that, very poor attempt by BDL, expect better from someone who should be neutral

[Hesi]

17 hours ago, VvD said:

I don't have a view on whether it was the right decision or not and the outcome didn't impact me but I do have a problem with De Lore's statement

"Had Taroni kept a straight line it would have won by more than a length"

This is a moot point - Taroni did not keep a straight line.  The runner-up is not responsible for ensuring that Taroni ran straight, and its chances of being promoted should not be impacted by the fact that Taroni ran out.

Had the runner-up been been allowed to run in a straight line (eg. if it was inside Taroni), and Taroni ran out as it did, then the runner-up would have won the race.

Very good post Virgil

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Very good post Virgil

While VvD's comment is fair, that's speculation about a situation that didn't exist. You could also say had that been the situation that Taroni may well not have run out with a horse inside it obscuring its vision of the post etc.and run straight, winning even more  comfortably.

[Hesi]

So much hand wringing by so many experienced horse people on this relegation.

But what you said Virgil, and I am not totally familiar with the rules of interference

Taroni, she did not run straight, that is her problem nothing to do with BLR

Yes, BLR had the whole straight to get past Taroni

BLR could not run straight in the last 50m , because Taroni was carting him out

Had BLR been able to run straight, while Taroni was veering out, the small margin of a head, applying Pythagoras and his theorem.

Say the veering out started 50m from the finish

The veering out was 10m

Therefore BLR was forced to run an extra 0.99m by Taroni, yet the final margin was a head, let's say 0.25m, therefore a 0.74m margin to BLR

 

[curious]

7 hours ago, Hesi said:

Taroni, she did not run straight, that is her problem nothing to do with BLR

Yes, BLR had the whole straight to get past Taroni

BLR could not run straight in the last 50m , because Taroni was carting him out

I think that's arguable and not how I saw it. It appeared to me that most of that time BLR moved out as Taroni did but was never pushed out or its line taken except at the point of contact. If BLR moves out as Taroni does, the space between them is fair game for either horse to use I think.

[mardigras]

BLR was wayward the entire time - watch her in the head on as they enter the straight. I've seen drunken sailors able to run a straighter line that that. I don't think Taroni made any difference to her running line except a slight nudge when the race was already beyond her (imo).

[mardigras]

15 minutes ago, VvD said:

Note, BLR is a "him" not a "her"

My apologies. I had no idea what the horse was, but thought I'd read reference to her. 

But I don't think BLR running around at the top of the straight had anything to do with Taroni. Taroni wasn't running out at that point.

I think the horse is simply wayward at this stage of its racing career.

[Hesi]

4 hours ago, curious said:

I think that's arguable and not how I saw it. It appeared to me that most of that time BLR moved out as Taroni did but was never pushed out or its line taken except at the point of contact. If BLR moves out as Taroni does, the space between them is fair game for either horse to use I think.

Yes after having a close look at the head on, I'm coming around to that way of thinking.

I timed the contact at just over 1 second duration