Racecourse manager cautioned over Going The following is the Stewards' report into an enquiry into today's unusual going (Good to Firm, Soft in places) at Tramore: 'The Stewards interviewed Ms Sue Phelan, General Manager Tramore Racecourse and Mr PF Graffin, Turf Club Clerk Of The Course concerning the watering procedures which took place overnight producing ground that was officially described as Good to Firm, Soft in places. Mr Graffin explained that on leaving the track last night, the ground was Good to Firm and with little or no rain forecast he advised minimal, light watering to maintain the ground as described and prevent the ground quickening to Firm. On arriving at the track this morning before midday, he found that the ground was Good to Firm along the backstraight but the dip at the bottom of the turn for home had been excessively watered and in his opinion was unsafe, and the home straight was soft also. He explained how he had worked with the course staff since to lay out the track on the best of the ground and he was satisfied racing could safely proceed on this new track layout. Ms Phelan explained that the track was watered under supervision by tanker until approx 11.30 last night but watering continued unsupervised for about another hour afterwards and she accepted full responsibility for this oversight. Having considered all the evidence, the Stewards were of the opinion Mr PF Graffin had complied with his responsibilities with regard to Regulation 9 (Watering of Racecourses) and accepted his explanation offered and took no further action. They were however of the opinion that the racecourse manager was in breach of Regulation 9 in that she had overwatered parts of the racecourse, altering the ground description, by having failed to supervise the watering of the track by tanker as described in the regulation. Having taken her good record in this regard into account they severely cautioned Ms Phelan, and recommended that a new, more accurate watering system be employed in future under strict supervision to prevent a reoccurrence of this matter. Furthermore, they reminded her that a breach of Regulation 9 in the future may render her liable to be referred to the Referrals Committee.'
