The Mauritius Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) appeal committee has overturned the eight-week suspension and Rs50,000 fine imposed on South African jockey Grant Van Niekerk, ruling that neither of the two charges relating to his ride on Bounceback had been established.
The decision followed a two-to-one split within the appeal committee, with the majority finding that the circumstances of the race and the available sectional timing evidence did not sufficiently support the allegations.
Key Highlights:
The GRA appeal committee overturned Van Niekerk’s eight-week suspension and Rs50,000 fine.
The majority concluded that neither charge relating to his ride on Bounceback was proven.
Bounceback’s poor start and interference from another horse were considered factors affecting its early positioning.
Assessors found that sectional timing evidence did not demonstrate a slowdown between the 1,000m and 600m marks.
Committee chairperson Ravi Bhookhun issued a dissenting opinion, favouring a reduced penalty on the first charge.
Appeal Committee Rejects Both Charges
Van Niekerk had been charged under Rule 414(b) of the Rules of Racing over two aspects of his performance aboard Bounceback in a 1,600m race.
The first allegation concerned his failure to bring the horse closer to the leading runners shortly after the start. The second alleged that he had failed to ride the horse with his usual vigour from the 700m mark.
Assessors Gilles Étienne and Dr Abdullah Atchia, who formed the majority, rejected both allegations.
On the first charge, they found that Bounceback had made a poor start and was subsequently hampered by another runner, Lets Play Poker. These circumstances affected Van Niekerk’s ability to move the horse closer to the leaders.
The majority also considered that the jockey had settled Bounceback in accordance with instructions from trainer Jevin Awotar. Given the horse’s established racing style of coming from behind and producing a strong late finish, the assessors found that the ride was consistent with what could reasonably be expected from a competent jockey.
Sectional Timing Evidence Questioned
The second charge focused on whether Van Niekerk had ridden Bounceback with sufficient vigour during the latter stages of the race.
However, the majority found that the sectional timing evidence did not establish a slowdown between the 1,000m and 600m marks.
The assessors also questioned comparisons involving separate 1,600m races, maintaining that each race should be evaluated according to its own circumstances rather than relying on direct comparisons of timing data.
Chairperson Issues Dissenting Opinion
Appeal committee chairperson Ravi Bhookhun disagreed with the majority’s position on the first allegation, maintaining that the stewards had been justified in imposing a sanction.
However, he agreed that the timing methodology used to support the second charge was unsafe.
In his separate opinion, Bhookhun indicated that a reduced penalty of three racing days’ suspension and a Rs50,000 fine would have been more appropriate.
Race Circumstances and Integrity Evidence
Bounceback eventually finished third in the 1,600m contest, more than four lengths behind winner Brave Bomber, which completed the race in 1:37.08.
The appeal also examined the use of sectional timing information supplied through the Horse Racing Integrity Division (HRID), alongside disagreements over the interpretation of the race’s pace and the instructions given to the jockey.
During proceedings, the GRA’s representative maintained that the stewards were entitled to rely on information provided by the HRID timekeeper. The defence, however, challenged both the interpretation of the timing data and the assessment of Van Niekerk’s riding instructions.
The final ruling overturned the original sanctions, bringing the appeal proceedings to a close.