Jockeys’ statement on dispute

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32667, 24 July 1971, Page 8

Jockeys’ statement on dispute

(N.Z. Press Association) PALMERSTON NORTH. The New Zealand Jockeys' Association had already taken up the matter of the extra fence in Trentham steeplechase events when some riders were involved in a dispute with the Wellington Racing Club judicial committee on the subject last week, said a statement by the association released yesterday. “Having regard to the controversy arising out of the third day’s meeting at Trentham and the objection lodged by jockeys to the last fence in the steeple-1 chase the Jockeys' Association! considers that it should make the following statement. It does so f after consultation with members of its executive, its secretary

(Mr J. Murchison) and its legal advisor (Mr T. de Cleene). “On the first day of the meeting Mr Murchison approached Mr H. W. Meyer, secretary of the Wellington Racing Club Mr A. E. Preston, the steward supervising the jumps, and Mr G. R. Tattersail the stipendiary steward.

“Mr Murchison conveyed to all parties the feeling of the association that the fence was placed too close to the winning post. Having regard to the lateness of the objection and the fact that practically for various reasons nothing could be done about it immediately, the association did not carry the matter to the stage of asking its members not to ride and accepted the assuriance given by Mr Meyer and Mr i Preston in particular that after the meeting some liaison would jbe had between the association and the club concerning the use of the fence in the future. “Such arrangement was satisfactory to both parties and was in furtherance of the excellent relationships which have existed between the association and the club.

“Mr Murchison, as secretary, was present at the third day of the meeting when . various jockeys, but in particular Mr L. Hodren and Mr G. Waiters, elected to take individual action at a very late stage concerning the fence.

“This statement is to makei clear that neither of them was! acting either with the approval! or the authority of the association, which already had the matter in hand. Moreover, had the matter become one of such extreme urgencytthen the proper approach might 9 well have been to the club through the secretary of the association present at the meeting. “It is true that the proximity of the fence to the winning post did, and still does, cause disquiet to the association, not so much as a matter of greater danger, as indeed all competing horses have to face the same obstacle, but because the mere proximity makes the run down to the post extremely short However, it might well be that the club now itself has some feeling that it wishes the fence was never put there. The association will continue to negotiate with the club for its removal.

“Although the association wishes to dissociate itself from the action of the two abovenamed jockeys, it does wish to record its view that the jockeys should not, in its opinion, have been brought back into the room before the committee and reprimanded by the stipendiary steward for the third dav. Mr P. J. Reid.

“After all. they had not in fact declined their engagements and to reprimand them without a charge even being preferred against them was to assume their guilt upon a charge which was never preferred against them. “Nevertheless, the association is not going to take this matter any further at this stage in view of the fact that what might be considered somewhat threatening tactics by the committee was in fact exactly the tactics adopted earlier by the two jockeys concerned. It appeared to be a case of ‘what was good enough for goose was good enough for gander.’ “The controversy concerning the last fence brings to the tore the fact that the club is one. if not the only one. still possessed of board fences. These do not have the give in them pt the standardised brush fences. Particularly on the third time round when horses become increasingly exhausted the boards constitute a far greater danger than the brush fences, both to horses and riders. Nor do they have the saving grace of providing any spectacle for the public because they are situated at too great a distance for the public to observe any detail in the jumping of th "ln summary, therefore, the association does not condone the action taken by the two individual jockeys but has the matter under liaison with the Wellington Racing Club.”