Burke suspension again reduced
For the second time Fraser Downs trainer/driver Jim Burke
has had his suspension reduced.
After an administrative review hearing on March 14, the
review panel -- chair George Morfitt, Peter Ellickson and
Brian Middleton -- concluded there were mitigating factors
that had to be considered in determining a penalty.
As a result the panel recommended the Feb. 11, 2003
reconsideration decision of the acting director Sam Hawkins
"be varied and that James Burke be suspended and denied the
privileges of the Fraser Downs grounds for a period of 60
days, Jan. 27, 2003 to March 27, 2003 inclusive and fined
the sum of $5,000."
That means that Burke will return to action this weekend
but only in Saturday's Delta Pace Stakes where two horses he
did train and drive are entered. He will drive one of Yumyum
Candy or Bo Magnolia, which was still to be determined at
this time. He will return to full action next weekend.
The original ruling by the judges presiding at Fraser
Downs had given Burke a suspension from Jan. 27, 2003 to
Dec. 31, 2005. They had ruled Burke "did manipulate the past
performance of the horse Proberts Punch allowing Burke and
other people linked together to profit from bets made on the
sixth race on Jan. 11."
After an internal reconsideration, the first change was
announced Feb. 11 by Hawkins, acting director of racing of
the Racing Division of the Gaming Policy and Enforcement
Branch of B.C. At the Feb. 6 reconsideration, Hawkins, after
studying evidence decided that Burke be denied the
privileges of the grounds for a period of 120 days, Jan. 27,
2003 to May 26, 2003, inclusive, and fined the sum of
$5,000.
At the March 14 hearing, there was a presentation by
Burke's counsel, and calling of witnesses.
From that the findings of the review panel were:
". Mr. Burke, the horse's driver, on December 29, 2002,
for undetermined reasons, did not permit the horse to run to
his potential on that date;
. the bets made on the horse by Mr. Burke, the horse's
driver, on January 11, 2003 were not permitted; and
. these actions by Mr. Burke were detrimental to the best
interests of harness racing.
In making these determinations the Review Panel had
regard to, but did not consider itself bound to follow the
opinions of either the Judges in the first instance, or the
Acting Director following his review of the evidence before
him concerning in both cases the subjective assessment of
the manner in which Mr. Burke ran his horse on December 29,
2002.
The Review Panel heard evidence that the horse may have,
unknown to Mr. Burke, been less than fully fit due to
respiratory infection. There was also evidence concerning
the inexperience of the horse and the inconstancies of
performance to be expected of a two year old horse. Mr.
Burke and the witnesses led by Mr. Muldoon (Burke's counsel)
gave evidence of potential explanations for why the horse
may not have run better, in particular during the first half
of the December 29 race.
A careful consideration by the Review Panel of the video
tape evidence indicates a lack of effort on the part of Mr.
Burke to run the horse to its potential on December 29. The
horse was not moved from its inside position, the gap in
front was not closed notwithstanding a slow pace, and no
other effort to improve position is apparent. When compared
to the marked and unusual degree of improvement in the
horse's performance on January 11, 2003, the Review Panel
has concluded there is convincing evidence the horse was not
run to its potential on December 29.
Accordingly, the Review Panel finds that Mr. Burke is in
violation of the following rules of Horse Racing in British
Columbia (revised rule numbering in brackets):
. 932 (1)(j) [249(1)(j)] A driver shall not, during a
race, lay off a normal pace and leave a hole behind a horse
in front, when it is within the capacity of the driver's
horse to keep the hole closed;
. 934(2) [251(2)] A driver shall not drive a horse in an
unsatisfactory manner due to lack of effort;
.934(3) [251(3)] A driver shall not drive a horse in a
manner which, in the opinion of the Judges, is
unsatisfactory for any reason;
. 644(3)[GCR 40(5)(b)] A driver shall only be allowed to
wager on a race in which he/she is driving if the wager is
on his/her own horse to win;
. 647(55)[75(30)] No person shall do anything, which in
the opinion of the Director or the Stewards/Judges, is
detrimental to the best interests of racing. (Wording is
from revised rule 75(30).)
In regard to the finding that the bets made on the horse
by Mr. Burke January 11, 2003 were not permitted, testimony
at the Hearing suggests that rule 644(3) [GCR40(5)(b)] was
not well understood by the drivers nor enforced by the
Judges. The Review Panel considers that these circumstances
mitigate against the levying of a severe penalty on Mr.
Burke in connection with this rule infraction.
Although there was no evidence establishing that Mr.
Burke manipulated or was responsible for the betting
activity which occurred on January 11 (other than the bets
he placed himself), the results of that betting activity
were facilitated by the poor performance of the horse on
December 29,and the results of the betting activity in the
view of the Review Panel were injurious to public confidence
in the integrity of racing. That outcome is a relevant
factor to be taken into account when assessing the
seriousness of Mr. Burke's infraction."
- 30 -