The National Horseracing Authority confirms that an Inquiry has been opened to establish why a ‘no start’ (i.e. false start) was not declared, in Race 6 at the Clairwood Racecourse on 17 March 2013, when the starting stall gate in which MY SANCTUARY was loaded, failed to open ‘on terms’.
Furthermore, in order to address inaccurate media reports, The National Horseracing Authority confirms that in determining the result in Race 6 at the Clairwood Racecourse,the Stipendiary Board declared MY SANCTUARY a runner in terms of Rule 61.5.10.1, which states:
Should the starter consider that through any faulty action of the starting gates or from any other cause, a fair start has not been effected, he may declare a “no start”. Should the starter not declare a “no start”, the SB may, after a hearing, declare any HORSE, which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening, a non-runner provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge shall not be declared a non-runner.
The rule above which is the appropriate rule in this instance, does not give any discretion to the Stipendiary Board and therefore the Stipendiary Board had no option but to declare MY SANCTUARY a runner as it was placed third by the Judge.
End of NHA Press Release
******************************************************************************************************
Ed: At the poster’s request, we have published this comment under this press release
Originall received as a new comment on the post “Punters On War Path: Police called”
Author : Brett Maselle
Comment:
The Sporting Post article of 20 March 2013 states that “The National Horseracing Authority confirms that an Inquiry has been opened to establish why a ‘no start’ (i.e. false start) was not declared, in Race 6 at the Clairwood Racecourse on 17 March 2013, when the starting stall gate in which MY SANCTUARY was loaded, failed to open ‘on terms’.”
I am somewhat disappointed but not surprised that the NHA is only holding an enquiry into why a “no start” was not declared. I believe that a more comprehensive enquiry should be held and the conduct of the Stipendiary Board should also be questioned. The reports written by the media on the incident appear to have accepted that the Stipes acted correctly and had no choice in making their decision. I am of the view that the horseracing public and industry is entitled to know, through an official NHA enquiry, what happened in the boardroom of the Stipes and what was the rationale for the decision.
The rules of the NHA legislate what can or cannot be done regarding certasin aspects of horseracing. The NHA uses the rules and its constitution to regulate horseracing. Although Punters are not members of the NHA, decisions on race days of the NHA affect punters. They have a right to know.
Since Horseracing has been around for centuries and has always been governed by rules, one would expect the rules to be clear and to cater for virtually every scenario that may occur. Serious consideration is required and, in my opinion, the rules should be revisited at least bi-anually. Last year I put questions to the NHA to be dealt with at its 2013 AGM. Below are the questions and answers.
On or about 4 June 2011 Rob de Kock advised Brett Maselle that the NHA was reviewing its rules regarding them being obsolete and antiquated. It has been noted from the NHA’s website that from 1 January 2013 the NHA rules are amended. Brett Maselle would like to know:-
Question: The names of the individuals who were members of the committee who considered and investigated the change to the rules?
Answer: In terms of clause 16.2.1, the National Board of the NHA has the power to make and promulgate, add to, repeal and alter the rules. The National Board had delegated this power to a Rules Committee. The members of the appointed Rules Committee are those persons listed on page 7 of the NHA’s 2012 Annual Report:
Question: Exactly who, outside the said committee, was consulted regarding the rules and any changes?
Answer:Mr Witts-Hewinson, as Chairman of the National Board, Mr C Hall, the Racing Administration Manager and Stipendiary Stewards, also had input in the recommended changes.In deciding which amendments should be recommended, the Rules Committee did take into account the various suggestions, comments and recommendations which it had received from various stakeholders in the industry. Suggestions and recommendations made by members of Inquiry/Appeal Boards were also considered. The Rules Committee thereafter submitted the recommended Rule amendments to the National Board which approved the amendments.
Question: Why the NHA did not ask horseracing in general to furnish its views regarding the rules and any proposals it may have?
Answer:A proper consideration of the marked up copy of the intended amendments, which appears on the NHA’s website, gives a reasonable indication of the rationale leading to the intended amendments.
Question: the reason behind the change to each and every rule?
Answer: No answer was given.
When I read the responses to my questions I was again disappointed but not surprised. It took a committee over 2 years to make changes to the rules, the majority of which were cosmetic rather than substantial. The vast majority of the changes have benefited the Operators and the NHA rather than horseracing.
The comment that “the Rules Committee did take into account the various suggestions, comments and recommendations which it had received from various stakeholders in the industry” peeved me off . Although, Punters are stakeholders punters were not consulted when they should have been. In June 2011 I had an exchange with Mr Rob de Kock (who I am pleased is leaving the NHA at the end of July 2013). In this exchange:-
he said ” I might add that the Management of the NHA is already engaged in a process in terms of which the entire set of rules is being reviewed to identify those provisions which are no longer applicable or which have become outdated or obsolete.”
I said “This is a good thing, however, I would suggest that prior to making the changes an open meeting should be held for comments and criticism. I have found that the operators and the NHA are not fully attuned to the needs of all the role players in horse racing.”
So, my request fell on deaf ears. To refer to “the stakeholders” is convenient for the NHA. They certainly were not punters nor owners (who are not members of the Racing Association)
I believe that a better job could and should have been done in connection with the changes to the rules. Other than the January 2013 changes, the rules have, to suit the NHA, been changed on at least 2 occassions as a result of me querying the conduct of the NHA and its directors and employees. The last change was in February 2013 and after 2 years of extensive review of the rules.I have recently been informed that the NHA is considering amending its Constitution, to again save its proverbial bacon on an issue raised by me.
Getting back to the topic on hand, why didn’t the stipes employ rule 61.6.11 which states:-
“The only HORSES which shall be deemed to have started will be those in the stalls when the starter releases the gates; provided that the SB after a hearing, may in its sole discretion and within the time period specified for the lodging of notification of an OBJECTION, declare any HORSE to be a non-starter.”
The stipes could have declared all the horses to be non-starters. They did not have to wait for the starter to declare a “non start”.
When I complained about Mr Rob de Kock having reached an agreement in breach of the rules in connection with the Jockeys International, Mr Rob de Kock, in trying to justify his conduct stated, amongst other things that “……All parties acted in the best interests of racing at all times to promote the event at the highest level”. My complaint was found to be without merit by the NHA appointed adjudicator who said that what Mr de Kock did was a “technical breach” and found nothing wrong with it. In my view if there is a breach then it is a breach whether “technical” or not. I mention this because, I would love to know why the Stipes could not have acted in the best interests of racing at all times and done what they believed was right, just like Mr de Kock did when he “technically breached” the rules? (This is a rhetorical question asked to point out that there is no consistency with the NHA)
The following times were published regarding the race:-
OFF TIME : 15:23:00
PROVISIONAL RESULT : 15:26:33
ALL CLEAR : 15:40:03
With the race review it took the stipes approximately 15 minutes after the race to reach their decision. What happened during this period?
