Mauritius Gambling Regulatory Authority’s appeal committee overturns jockey’s ban
The ruling split the appeal committee, with chairperson Ravi Bhookhun favouring a reduced penalty on the first charge.
Key takeaways:
- The Mauritius Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) appeal committee overturned South African jockey Grant Van Niekerk’s suspension and Rs50,000 fine.
- The two-to-one decision found that neither charge concerning his ride on Bounceback was proven.
- The majority found that Bounceback’s poor start and interference from another horse, Lets Play Poker, affected Van Niekerk’s ability to position it closer to the leaders.
- The assessors found that sectional timing evidence did not establish a slowdown between the 1,000m and 600m marks.
- Appeal committee chairperson Ravi Bhookhun disagreed with the majority on the first charge but considered the timing methodology supporting the second charge unsafe.
Mauritius.- The Mauritius Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) appeal committee has overturned the eight-week suspension and Rs50,000 (US$1,057) fine imposed on South African jockey Grant Van Niekerk, finding that neither allegation concerning his ride on Bounceback was proven. The two-to-one decision followed a review of the race circumstances and sectional timing evidence, with the majority rejecting both charges.
The majority decision was delivered by assessors Gilles Étienne and Dr Abdullah Atchia, whose findings differed from those of appeal committee chairperson Ravi Bhookhun on the first charge.
Van Niekerk had faced two allegations under Rule 414(b) of the Rules of Racing. The first alleged that he had failed to bring Bounceback closer to the leading horses shortly after the start. The second claimed that he had not ridden the horse with his usual vigour from the 700m mark.
On the first allegation, the majority found that Bounceback had not made a good start and was hampered by another horse, Lets Play Poker. This affected Van Niekerk’s ability to position it closer to the leaders. He subsequently settled the horse in line with instructions from trainer Jevin Awotar.
The assessors considered the ride consistent with what could reasonably be expected from a competent jockey riding a horse accustomed to coming from behind and producing a strong late finish.
The majority also found that the sectional timing evidence did not establish that the pace had slowed between the 1,000m and 600m marks. It questioned comparisons between separate 1,600m races, noting that each race should be assessed on its own circumstances.
Appeal committee chairperson Ravi Bhookhun delivered a separate opinion. He considered that the stewards had been entitled to sanction Van Niekerk in relation to the first allegation, but agreed that the timing methodology used to support the second charge was unsafe. He indicated that a reduced penalty of three racing days’ suspension and a Rs50,000 fine would have been more appropriate.
Bounceback finished third in the 1,600m race, more than four lengths behind winner Brave Bomber, which completed the distance in 1:37.08.
The appeal proceedings examined the use of sectional timing data supplied through the Horse Racing Integrity Division (HRID), as well as disagreements over how the race’s pace should be assessed.
During the appeal hearing, the GRA’s representative argued that the stewards were entitled to rely on timing information supplied by the HRID timekeeper. The defence challenged the interpretation of the race data and the instructions given to Van Niekerk.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
- Why was Grant Van Niekerk suspended in Mauritius? Van Niekerk faced two charges under Rule 414(b) of the Rules of Racing. The allegations concerned his failure to position Bounceback closer to the leaders after the start and his riding effort from the 700m mark.
- Why did the Mauritius Gambling Regulatory Authority appeal committee overturn the suspension? The majority found that neither charge had been proven on the balance of probabilities. Its assessment considered Bounceback’s poor start, interference from another horse, the trainer’s instructions and the sectional timing evidence.
- What was the disagreement over Bounceback’s sectional timings? The majority found that the evidence did not establish a slowdown between the 1,000m and 600m marks. It also questioned the use of comparisons between separate 1,600m races.
- What was Ravi Bhookhun’s position? Bhookhun considered the first charge justified but agreed that the timing methodology supporting the second charge was unsafe. He suggested a reduced penalty of three racing days’ suspension and a Rs50,000 fine.
