No Violations Found in Review of Assiniboia Downs Race, Assiniboia's CEO Disagrees

A determination has been reached in the unusual stretch run of Assiniboia Downs Racetrack's fifth race July 20, with no rules found to be violated and no change to the order of finish. The Manitoba Jockey Club (MJC), non-profit operator of Assiniboia Downs, had formally requested that its provincial regulator, the Liquor, Gaming & Cannabis Authority (LGCA), conduct a review after jockey Sheldon Chickeness, aboard King Witt (Five Demon Bag), turned for home approximately five lengths in front before appearing to pull his mount up and allowing much of the field to pass. He then re-rallied to finish second.

In a letter from LGCA's Director of Operations Natasha Hohol, MPA, she said, “The LGCA initiated our standard investigative processes. In this case, this included such steps as interviewing witnesses, analyzing video replay, and reviewing wagering data. The LGCA has determined that no Rules of Thoroughbred Racing were violated. Therefore, adjustments to the order of finish are not required.”

Darren Dunn, CEO of Assiniboia Downs, indicated officials at the Manitoba track “strongly disagree with the conclusion.” The official statement from Dunn follows in full:

“I want to start by indicating from the outset that we understand and fully respect the right and responsibility that our regulator has to make the determination that they did related to this race. At the same time, I want to identify and recognize our right as the operator to respond to their findings and, to be clear, we strongly disagree with the conclusion they arrived at from this review.

“Our interpretation of the race is that the horse, King Witt, to our understanding, may have previously exhibited tendencies in how he navigates the turn for home and the early stretch drive of the racetrack that caused the jockey to believe that with a potential repeat of those tendencies, the safety of the other horses and jockeys in the race were in jeopardy and that this was reflected in his actions, exhibiting his concern.

“And, while we will always support and encourage efforts of jockeys to be safe in the saddle for themselves, their fellow riders and the horses in the race, a distinction, in our opinion, should be made when these actions occur and then affect the possible and likely ultimate outcome of the race through an overreaction by a jockey. We believe, in our opinion, that jockey Sheldon Chickeness did overcompensate in his handling of his mount, likely related to a safety concern, but given the clear lead the horse had at the time, he did affect, in our opinion, the final outcome of the race and the order of finish.

“We believe that, while consideration and understanding could be given to his safety intent, overriding this was the need to protect the wagering public in ensuring the integrity of the race remained intact and that the overcompensation by jockey Sheldon Chickeness should have been met with a determination of significant discipline against him.”