Rob Heathcote - Trainer - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Rob Heathcote - Trainer - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Rob Heathcote  (Read 119645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
O.P. « 2010-Sep-06, 08:15 PM »
"Stewards questioned L. Cassidy regarding his riding tactics adopted on FILLYDELPHIA today where he restrained the filly shortly after the start to settle in a position at the rear of the field. L. Cassidy advised stewards that he was instructed to attempt to ride FILLYDELPHIA in a position slightly worse than midfield with cover if possible. L. Cassidy added that from the outside barrier and with 59 kilograms it was his opinion that the best option was to restrain the filly shortly after the start and ride with cover at the rear of the field. Stable representative Miss M. Leitch explained that trainer R. Heathcote had assessed that there was significant speed drawn to FILLYDELPHIA'S inside and instructed L. Cassidy to settle the filly towards the rear of the field with cover. Trainer R. Heathcote through his stable representative Miss Leitch pleaded guilty to a charge under AR135A in that he failed to notify stewards that FILLYDELPHIA would be restrained shortly after the start today, which was in contrast to its most recent start when it won at Doomben on 21 August 2010. Subsequently, trainer R. Heathcote was fined the sum of $500.00. A post race veterinary examination of FILLYDELPHIA revealed the filly to be lame in the off fore leg. Stable representative was advised that a veterinary certificate of fitness must be produced before FILLYDELPHIA again races."

Seeing that Heathcote was at Flemington,and left her in charge,it would be reasonable to think that stable rep Miss M Leitch should have notified stewards of the change in tactics. :wacko:

Her failure to do so resulted in her boss copping a penalty when she should have copped most of the blame. >:(

As it turned out it wasn't a smart move :rant:

Offline ted e turner

  • Group 2
  • User 311
  • Posts: 3961
« 2010-Sep-06, 08:25 PM Reply #1 »
wrong arsie...heathcote being the leading metro trainer in the state would have the chief stewards number in his mobile under w or b.....a long odds on pre-post and a major change then he should have called it in and early and not let the run look off and th stable taking the muzzle from birch and his merry crew of no-hopers :yes:

Offline usernametaken

  • Group3
  • User 937
  • Posts: 683
« 2010-Sep-06, 08:38 PM Reply #2 »
Thought I read somewhere that she was going for a spell whether she won, lost or drew.
Never a good sign IMHO

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
« 2010-Sep-08, 07:56 AM Reply #3 »
wrong arsie...heathcote being the leading metro trainer in the state would have the chief stewards number in his mobile under w or b.....a long odds on pre-post and a major change then he should have called it in and early and not let the run look off and th stable taking the muzzle from birch and his merry crew of no-hopers :yes:

ted you stick to politics and leave  this  one to me. :beer:

Offline MagiC~*

  • Admin
  • Group 1
  • User 2
  • *****
  • Posts: 14306
« 2010-Sep-13, 11:04 AM Reply #4 »
Has his appeal heard today

Offline vadim

  • Group 2
  • User 51
  • Posts: 2684
« 2010-Sep-13, 11:46 AM Reply #5 »
Has his appeal heard today

I have it on very good authority that the appeal was upheld.

I trust that this will put to bed any thoughts that he in any way attempted to dupe the punting public.

He has an extremely good record in this regard and was upset to think that the stewards saw fit to charge him in the first place.



Offline MagiC~*

  • Admin
  • Group 1
  • User 2
  • *****
  • Posts: 14306
« 2010-Sep-13, 12:44 PM Reply #6 »
  emthup

Offline vadim

  • Group 2
  • User 51
  • Posts: 2684

Offline gratlog

  • Group 1
  • User 5
  • Posts: 12700
« 2010-Sep-13, 02:34 PM Reply #8 »
Apart from all that, the horse did pull up lame , didn't it?

Not saying that Larry is a bad rider, but I just don't have any luck with him.

Didn't back the horse that day for that reason.

Offline vadim

  • Group 2
  • User 51
  • Posts: 2684
« 2010-Sep-13, 04:32 PM Reply #9 »
Apart from all that, the horse did pull up lame , didn't it?

You are correct.

Offline ted e turner

  • Group 2
  • User 311
  • Posts: 3961
« 2010-Sep-14, 03:20 PM Reply #10 »
ah the text messages tell the tale of the tape........stewards never even bothered to look or inquire :nowink:

Offline richo

  • Group 2
  • User 47
  • Posts: 1783
« 2010-Sep-14, 04:10 PM Reply #11 »
stewards are never wrong lol went to eagle farm one sat when ray murrihy was there anyway go called into stewards to be told i hadn't got the nrra to send clearence for the horse and me i said i asked them to send it after acceptances  anyway they said they'd call me back in when they decided if the horse could start or not. 20mins later one of the cadets came down not to worry the horse could start i asked what happened he said someone went and checked the fax machine and it had been there since thursday but no one had checked.

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2010-Sep-15, 11:43 AM Reply #12 »
From letsgohorseracing.com.au

FILLYDELPHIA INQUIRY ‘AN EMBARRASSMENT’ FOR THE STEWARDS?

‘THE inquiry into riding tactics adopted by Larry Cassidy on hot favorite Fillydelphia at Eagle Farm was not only an embarrassment for Racing Queensland but someone owes one hell of an apology to top trainer Robert Heathcote.

The Appeals Tribunal stopped short of giving the stewards panel what most consider would have been a well deserved burst for their handling of this matter.

Evidence that has emerged since Heathcote puts his side of the story forward – he was absent on the day in Melbourne – certainly raise some issues and questions of whether the Integrity Department of RQ should take a fresh look at the ride of Larry Cassidy.

If the Appeals Tribunal accepted that Cassidy was not instructed by Heathcote or the connections of Fillydelphia to have the odds-on favorite at the tail of the field, at least the Cassidy evidence to the original inquiry, if not his ride, should be questioned in more detail.

I read in the Information Notice on the RQ web site that the Appeals Tribunal observed stewards did not avail themselves of text messages forwarded by the trainer to the jockey. To make it worse it suggests they rejected the opportunity to look at these. Apparently one member of the Tribunal gave chief steward on the day, Daniel Aurisch, a real dressing down over his handling of this particular matter. RQ should put a transcript of that debate on their web site for all to read.

From a punters’ perspective if Cassidy wasn’t told to take the horse back to last what the hell was he doing back there and when the pace was so slow why did he not take off before he did and at least give those of us who took the shorts some hope of a collect.'– Mick the Mad Punter, Rockhampton.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The negative publicity that comes with an inquiry of this nature can damage the reputation of a top stable. Rob Heathcote has worked hard to build a strong team of owners and completed a major career milestone as leading trainer in Brisbane last season. It seems to me that the Appeals Body sent a message to stewards that there were aspects of this inquiry that warranted further investigation. I know Fillydelphia drew wide and pulled up sore but they did get along and he was entitled to run on better. For transparency sake this inquiry should be re-opened by the Integrity Department to allow some unfinished business to at least be investigated.


Offline proud_dad

  • Group3
  • User 980
  • Posts: 510
« 2010-Sep-15, 05:41 PM Reply #13 »
what a shame he got beat a nose in the last today by a rider he said would never make it who's laughing now

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 22568
« 2010-Sep-15, 09:17 PM Reply #14 »
proud_dad  This post was hidden by a moderator     

Why?

Fair dinkum!!!!

This is an absolute shit-box practice on the forum emthdown emthdown emthdown


Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2010-Sep-16, 02:17 PM Reply #15 »
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.



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
« 2010-Sep-17, 08:05 AM Reply #16 »
I've read all of Rob Heathcote's  blogs since being alerted to them by Vadim's post :thumbsup:

He's a very engaging communicator,writes in a conversational style,easy to read and understand. :clap2:

Obviously a cut above the rest. :beer:


Offline triple7

  • Group 1
  • User 14
  • Posts: 8248
« 2010-Sep-17, 08:44 AM Reply #17 »
And he trains alright too   :biggrin:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18432
« 2010-Sep-17, 08:57 AM Reply #18 »
The Fillydelphia ride may have caused a temporary rift with the jockey, no rides for him at Doomben for the premier trainer. :whistle:

Only 4 acceptors but Cassidy on none and has taken rides in all those races from other stables. >:(

Offline MagiC~*

  • Admin
  • Group 1
  • User 2
  • *****
  • Posts: 14306
« 2010-Sep-18, 04:43 PM Reply #19 »
Woorim, was a ripper of a run   emthup

Offline vadim

  • Group 2
  • User 51
  • Posts: 2684
« 2010-Sep-26, 04:19 PM Reply #20 »
If it had been 1200m I believe Aquired would have won.

I think this placing was one of 12 placed horses down south without a stable winner yet. :tears:

Will Woorim and Buffering break the duck? :yes:



Rumpelstiltskin

  • Guest
« 2011-Sep-11, 08:43 AM Reply #21 »
 :bye:
 
« Last Edit: 2013-May-09, 03:37 PM by Rumpelstiltskin »

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2011-Sep-25, 09:39 AM Reply #22 »
Not sure I would have chosen to sit beside Rob Heathcote on the flight back from Melbourne.

Was a horror day at the office for Brisbane's leading mentor.

Nothing went right at Doomben, and Woorim's chances were sunk early in the day when it became clear ya had no hope back at the tail.

Offline monologue

  • Group 1
  • User 200
  • Posts: 8692
« 2011-Sep-25, 11:05 AM Reply #23 »
A slight hiccup,that's all.

I'd expect him to bounce back pretty quick.
He has Buffering entered for the Manikato next Friday night so best of luck to the team.

Vadim naturally was disappointed with Funtantes' run but the win by the warriors would have put the smile back on his dial.

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2011-Oct-20, 01:24 PM Reply #24 »
As always, Heathcote's blog on HRO is worth a read.

He expresses his dismay at having many horses in his stable who don't perform on wet-tracks.  GUNDY SON was scratched last week in the wet and will now race at Flemington first up. :chin:

BUFFERING has a "sore back" and is having treatment.  I sincerely hope Rob doesn't spend too much on the chirpractor. :shutup:

http://www.horseracingonly.com.au/racing-article.aspx?id=1421


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap