Rob Heathcote - #1 Horse Racing Forum in Australia for Race-Horse News

From horseracingonly.com.au

ROB’S SHOUT - JUSTICE SERVED

By Robert Heathcote | Thursday, September 16, 2010

Robert Heathcote is the leading racehorse trainer in Brisbane. 'Rob's Shout' - the personal blog of the premiership winning trainer will appear every Thursday on HRO.

It's never easy winning any horse race whether it's in the country, provincial or on the city race tracks. That's pretty much a given in the racing industry and whenever we do win a race we, as a stable, take a lot of personal satisfaction on a job well done.

Conversely, we also can get quite disappointed when horses do not, for some reason, perform to our expectations.

Sure, the expectations can and often do vary quite a bit between the trainer, the track rider, the stable staff, the betting public and no doubt the owner. For some reason as a trainer, the shorter the price a horse is in a particular race, the more pressure there tends to be on having that horse perform up to everyone's 'expectations'.

I recently had an instance where I had a very good filly going for basically five wins in a row. She was a clear odds-on favourite … yet she didn't run a place!

The filly was Fillydelphia which raced unplaced at Eagle Farm on September 4. She was considered by many to be basically, 'a put in and take out proposition' but, as we all know in this 'game', there is no such thing as a good thing!

After the race, there was a stewards’ inquiry. At that inquiry I, as the trainer of Fillydelphia, was found guilty of a charge of failing to notify the stewards pre-race of a deliberate change of riding tactics. (Fillydelphia went back to last soon after the start and was never in the race). I was fined $500 for this 'offence'.

I want to take you through the events surrounding this race and the subsequent appeal where I was exonerated of the charge.

A comment was made by the stewards regarding the price of the horse and that many punters were 'duped' into backing her at the shorts expecting her to maybe be sitting outside of the leader.

There is a rule in place, which can at times be a bit contentious, regarding notifying the stewards of any change of tactics. If the stewards are notified of this pre-race they can then let the betting public know if a horse will be ridden differently from its previous start or starts.

I am not opposed to this rule as most horses have a developed racing pattern and if this deviates too much, sure as anything the horse cannot win. I have had horses that just have to lead to be able to win and horses that, if you go forward, do not finish their races off. Some horses obviously have to be ridden from off the speed.

It's a fair rule in general practice, but there are times when circumstances can and do make it a contentious rule. This was very much the case in Fillydelphia’s race.

My instructions to the jockey for this particular race were to try and get into a position with cover around midfield or slightly worse. Bear in mind that it was a mile race and the start affords a straight run of some 600m to the first turn.

Fillydelphia did have the outside barrier and the hefty impost of 59 kilos so my thinking was, if she gets in … great … if not, then Larry Cassidy may have to ease her back as there did look to be quite good speed in the race … on paper anyway!

At her previous race start Fillydelphia won sitting outside of the leader, but that was in a field of only six runners and they absolutely walked early, covering the first 1000m in nearly 67 seconds.

In the race where the riding tactics were under question, the jockey had a quick look to see what the situation was and he then opted to hold her back from the barriers and ride her, in the words of the Acting Chief Steward 'negatively' in contrast to her previous runs.

An inquiry was held immediately after the race and both the jockey and my stable representative were questioned as to the actual riding tactics and the instructions given.

It was always my intention to have the filly ridden in an effort to try and get into a position in midfield and this was conveyed to the jockey by Melissa (my stable representative) in the presence of my friend Wayne Purchase who was representing the absent owners on the day!

It was established in the inquiry that the instructions were as I stated and this was admitted to by the jockey to the stewards panel.

Melissa acknowledged that we got back further than we had anticipated even though she clearly said we wanted to be midfield with cover, but the Chief Steward was adamant that an offence had occurred.

It can be quite a daunting and intimidating process in the stewards room at times and Melissa, being a touch inexperienced in this process pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to notify stewards re a change of riding tactics, even though in her heart she knew we had done nothing wrong and therefore had not contravened any rules of racing.

I used the term 'intimidating' as that is exactly what an inquiry hearing can be for a stable representative, as it was for Melissa in the stewards’ room that day. By that I am referring to the whole process and I am certainly not suggesting any personal intimidation from the stewards.

The first I heard of all of this regarding the inquiry and charge was as I was saddling Buffering at Flemington before the Group 2 Danehill Stakes. To say I was angry would be an understatement as I also knew that we had done nothing wrong.

I immediately called the Acting Chief Steward in Brisbane, Mr Daniel Aurisch, and firstly stated that my representative’s plea of guilty would be changed to a not guilty plea and an immediate appeal would be lodged and I would vigorously defend the charge.

Fillydelphia’ s best racing pattern is when she sits off the pace in about sixth to eighth place and even though we had a wide gate, that is where I had hoped she would be and that's what the riding instructions were to the jockey.

It's a rule that I am very mindful of as I have been instructed by the stewards panel in the past that if in doubt at all, it is better to pop into the rooms and let them know pre-race that we may be riding a touch different according the speed and the barriers etc.

They know there are many variances but, in Fillydelphia's case, I was adamant that no offence from the trainer had taken place.

It wasn't so much the fine of the $500 which hurt, it was the notion that I had done something wrong which could easily be seen by the public as deceitful, so I wanted my chance to have my say as my phone conversation with the Acting Chief Steward didn't seem to have any effect and his mind was made up.

I don't disagree with the fact that an inquiry was held and questions asked about the race and the ride, but I was certainly not guilty of any offence and I wanted to defend my case and my reputation as there were immediate comments made on a number of racing forums that questioned my integrity in this instance and told how hard done by all the punters were who lost on the ‘good thing’.

I should also point out that the vet found the filly to be lame after the race, a further mitigating factor which has seemed to escape the attention of all of those who were crying foul.

To go to an appeal in front of independent racing and legal experts costs $600 and if you do not win the case, the money is forfeited … so my ‘penalty’ could easily have been doubled, but I knew that I had a very strong case and I just wanted to have my say on what I believed.

The appeal was held at the racing offices of Racing Queensland. I simply stated my case to the appeal panel where I detailed all of the events and the circumstances surrounding the race itself and of course the fillies previous runs and I established what her best racing pattern was in my opinion as the trainer.

Wayne Purchase was there as a witness to the actual conversation between my stable representative and Larry Cassidy and at no stage was Larry instructed to go back to last.

I established what our instructions were to the jockey and where we 'expected' him to be. Of course there is no guarantee he would be where I wanted him to be, but it was important that the panel understood the way I anticipated the race would unfold.

Perhaps if I had been in Brisbane on the day I could have made the stewards’ panel understand my instructions clearer and they may have taken a different course of action?

The Acting Chief Steward on the day then gave his evidence as to why a charge was laid and I was allowed to 'cross examine'!

I guess there is a little bit of 'Perry Mason' in all of us from all the TV courtroom dramas we watch on telly, but I believed in my case and was convinced of my case of innocence and 'Right' will take you a long way if you can convey that to the right people!

The Appeals panel upheld my appeal and I was absolved of any wrongdoing and the appeal fee will be refunded.

I know the stewards have a important job to do and the adherence to the rules of racing is essential to ensure the integrity of racing but sometimes, in my opinion the application of these rules can be over zealously applied!

I guess that's why there is the appeal process in place if a licensee feels aggrieved by the stewards’ decision.

The application of fines will always be contentious in my eyes whether it be for a minor infraction such as forgetting gear or to a more serious rule breech like leaving a lead bag off or the like, or even a positive swab.

Most of the time it is what is considered to be accidental and not intended, but we always seem to cop fines for any rule infraction.

I would prefer a system like demerit points. Over a given period a trainer or a jockey has a certain number of points and when those are used up, a penalty is then applied! More points deducted for a more serious breach and so on.

But I guess, that is another issue altogether.

Racehorse TALK