Allocation of barrier draws by Gold Circle to the filly named “Misty Morn”
Set out below is a table of barrier draws allocated to my filly since she commenced her racing career in September 2011. As can be seen, she has received 10 bad draws out of the 11 times she has been nominated to race.
It is inconceivable and statistically improbable that these results could have arisen and the matter if of grave concern to me.
On looking at the above table, anyone who has an understanding of the Law of Averages will come to the conclusion that something is amiss in the department of Gold Circle which deals with the allocation of barrier draws to runners.
They would probably feel that there is either a computer programming error in regard to the selection process or, alternately, it is even possible that there may be some form of human intervention in such process. If the latter were to be the case, it would be a very serious matter indeed.
The purpose of this letter is to alert you to Misty Morn’s unfortunate situation where a good filly is not able to reach her potential due to an ongoing series of bad draws. The matter needs to be investigated thoroughly and if any malpractice is found it should, in the interests of clean racing, be dealt with severely.
Allocation of barrier draws by Gold Circle the filly named “Misty Morn”I refer to my letter to you dated 29 May 2012 and to certain faxed information which I received from the desk of Pam Wright (PA to the Executive Directors) on 18 June 2012.
1. Draw Allocation Computer And It’s Programming
(a) Information provided by Gold Circle
You have faxed me a copy of a letter of certification from NRCS Electrotechinical which has evaluated a test report conducted by GLI Africa (Pty) Ltd. Also transmitted are the terms and conditions applicable to such report.
(b) My comment on the letter of certification
The letter of certification of the draw allocation computer – RNG is dated 8 December 2010 and with it comes the disclaimer that the report “may not be relied upon for any reason by any person or entity other than the recipient (Gold Circle), notwithstanding the fact that a copy of the report may be delivered or otherwise made available to a third party.”
In the first instance, the letter of certification is not a current on (i.e. based on a test conducted after you received my letter dated 29 May 2012) and secondly, GLI is not confident that its findings can be relied upon by any third party. Clearly, the letter of certification which you faxed to me, hardly worth the paper it is written on.
2. Schedule Of Draws And Notes Applicable Thereto
(a) Information provided by Gold Circle
In the schedule of draws which you faxed to me and in the “notes” column thereof, you make the following comments:-
(i) “Misty Morn” would have slotted down one or two draws due to the space as a result of the scratched horse/s.”
(ii) “No race meeting” and “Race meeting abandoned” – the implication being that, if race meetings are cancelled (in these cases it was due to rain), then the draws allocated to “Misty Morn” on these occasions should be disregarded and not taken into account.
(b) My comments on the notes section of the schedule of draws
(i) My response to the above is that the scratchings of a horse makes not one iota of difference to the fact that, after such scratching. “Misty Morn” has still been allocated a bad draw.
(ii) If, by commenting on the cancellation of meetings Gold Circle is attempting to eliminate some of the bad draws from the schedule, it is a no brainer.
The fact that some meetings were cancelled due to bad weather is irrelevant – it does not alter the position at all. My filly was allocated bad draws on those dates and nothing can change the fact.
3. Possible Human Intervention In The Selection Process
(a) Information provided by Gold Circle
Pam Wright’s fax provided no clarification whatsoever as to whether or not there may have been some form of human intervention in the selection process.
(b) My comments on the human intervention issue
This is the most important facet of all and Gold Circle needs to investigate the matter thoroughly. If intervention were to have taken place, it would be a very serious matter indeed.
Amongst other issues, perhaps clarification needs to be obtained on the following matter:-
(i) How many people are present at the computer when barrier draws are allocated?
(ii) Are these staff members rotated from time to time?
(ii) Do the internal or the external auditors sometimes take over the allocation function on a surprise “spot check” basis?
(iv) Are members of Gold Circle’s management team or it’s directors ever present when the draws are finalised?
(v) Can owners be present when draws take place, particularly when they have a runner or runners in the race?
(vi) Is it technically possible for a draw to be changed after the computer has printed out a result and would a computer expert be able to prove or verify whether or not a second amended printout had been created for that race?
(vii) Has Gold Circle utilised its computer capacity to analyse say the past six months’ draws in order to ascertain whether certain owners, trainers or jockeys are favoured by consistently receiving better barrier draws than their counterparts in the racing industry?
(viii) Do the occasional public barrier draws for important races reflect a different pattern from the normal weekly draws for smaller races?
4. Ongoing Problem With Barrier Draws
I think that you should know that, after having written to you on 29 May 2012, my filly was again allocated a bad draw (7/9) at a Clairwood race meeting on 24 June 2012. “Misty Morn” has now received 11 bad draws out of the 12 times she has been nominated to race and it is clear that the problem continues.
5. Superficial Investigation By Your Internal Audit Staff And Undertaking To Write A Letter To Me Addressing My Concerns.
From the scanty information and the inept comments I have received from you in Pam Wright’ fax, I can only come to the conclusion that your internal auditors’ investigation has been of an extremely superficial nature. This is most unsatisfactory and I trust that you will take steps to rectify the position.
When I handed in my letter dated 29 May 2012 I was given an undertaking by your Vice Chairman that I would be receiving a written response to the two issues I have raised and, as a considerable amount of time has now elapsed since that date, I would appreciate receiving such a letter as soon as possible.
