Only Decisions Issued After Swab Inquiries

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31049, 3 May 1966, Page 6

Only Decisions Issued After Swab Inquiries

The lack of information in the official notices issued after the Final Count swab inquiry and the Little Jack appeal heard in Christchurch last week must be of great concern to all owners and trainers. The decisions were of great importance and it is most unfortunate that the two tribunals decided to issue only their bare findings.

The Final Count swab inquiry was the third such hearing in the last few months. The first was held in Dunedin on March 11 to hear charges resulting from a positive swab returned by Presto, a winner at the Wyndham meeting on November 27. Then, on March 31, in Wellington, an inquiry was held into a positive swab returned by High Note after it had won a race at Hutt Park Raceway in December. In all three cases it is believed the swabs returned positive tests to theobromine, a drug common to several proprietary stock foods. In the case of Presto ,all charges were dismissed, the tribunal in its finding saying that it was not satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt that theobromine has been proved to be a drug capable of affecting the speed, stamina, courage or conduct” of the horse. Charges of administering a drug and failing to take precautions to prevent a drug being administered to a horse were laid in this case. Similar charges were laid against J. B. Rea in the High Note case. The charge of ad-

ministration was dismissed, but Rea was found guilty of negligence. The committee imposed a nominal fine of £25 and disqualified High Note from the race on the ground that it had had theobromine administered to it. Long Hearing Two days and a half were spent in hearing evidence and submissions and considering a finding in the Final Count inquiry. T. W. Husband and H. R. Henderson were found, guilty of failing to prevent a drug being administered to the horse and were fined £25 and disqualified for six months. Then, contrary to almost every decision made in swabbinj cases—both galloping and trotting—it was decided not to disqualify the horse for the race. No doubt the tribunal had good reasons for arriving at such a decision, but it must be of great concern to most persons interested in trotting that such reasons were not disclosed. Although the Little Jack case was taken by way of rehearing. this was not stated in the decision of the appeal judges. The judges apparently found that when Little Jack broke at the five furlongs and the four furlongs in the Wrey’s Bush his driver did not make sufficient effort to return him to his correct gait. According to newspaper reports of the running of the Wreys Bush Handicap at the Wairio. meeting on April 2, Little Jack broke twice before going on to win easily by six lengths. Subsequently he was relegated to third. At the appeal hearing

Little Jack was disqualified under Rule 281 (1), which makes no provision for relegation. Some aspects of the appeal hearing must give cause for concern. The appellant, G. R. Shirley, acting as agent for W. R. Harris, of Invercargill, the owner of Little Jack, was faced with extra expense when the Trotting Conference decided that the appeal would be heard in Christchurch. Had Shirley wanted to call new evidence, the cost of getting the witnesses to Christchurch would have been excessive in view of the winning stake of £l5O. The appointment of the South Island vice-president of the conference (Mr 0. Hutchinson), of Christchurch, as an appeal judge, was surprising. It is impossible to recall a case where a member of the executive of the conference, excluding the president, has been appointed an appeal judge. Usually this has been avoided as it is generally agreed that the executive is the employer of the stipendiary stewards, who lay the charges and decide penalties where breaches of the rules occur on race days. ’ Findings in hearings held under the Rules of Trotting have for years been notorious for their brevity and the lack of information they have contained. Last week’s hearings aroused great interest, but most persons are little wiser regarding the reasons for the decisions of the two tribunals.