TURF SENSATION

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 140, 15 June 1928, Page 7

TURF SENSATION

r (By Telegraph.)

■ ♦ - THREE JOCKEYS DISQUALIFIED

(Special to "The Evening Post.") AUCKLAND, 14th June. Allegations of corrupt practice in regard to the ridine of horses in two high-weight handicaps at the. last annual meeting of the llotorua Jockey Club have been investigated by the Judicial Committee of that body, consisting of Dr. H. Bertram (chairman), Dr. A. M'Gregor Grant, and Messrs. G. E. L. Alderton, M. li. Hampson, and K. la Trobe Hill, and as a result AY. llennie and A. J. Gilmer have been disqualified for twelve months, and J. M'Kae for six months. The finding is as follows:— "This committee is called upon to determine charges against W. Kennie, J. M Kae, C. Cannont, R. E. Thomson, A. J, Gilmer, and G. Holland, of corrupt practice under the rules of racing, in that they were parties to a conspiracy that Dress Circle should win the Pohutu HighAVeight Handicap at the Kotorua Meeting on 11th February last, and against the .same jockeys, with the exception of Holland and Gilmer, that they were guilty of a similar corrupt practice in respect of the Tarawera High-weight Handicap at Kotorua on 13th February last, in that they were party to a conspiracy that Lady Cintra should win this race. In the first race, besides the jockeys charged, K. Syme rode Wiltshire, and Maguire Lady Spalpeen, and direct evidence against the jockeys concerned is mainly the evidence of Syme and Maguire. Evidence was also taken from AViggins, M'Gregor, Loomb, Martin, Hines, and Shaw, while statements were made by the jockeys concerned, who also called R. Hannon to give evidence on their behalf. They also handed in the paper report on the races in question. MUCH EVIDENCE. "We deal first with the charge in respect of the Pohutu High-weight Handicap," the judgment continues. "There is considerable discrepancy between all the parties as to the various positions of the horses during the race. This is not unreasonable, as the statements were taken from the parties concerned some time after the race, and through force of circumstances the evidence in support of the charges was only commenced on Friday, Ist June. After hearing Byrne's and Maguirc's statements we are satisfied that they are truthful witnesses, who gave their evidence honestly. It is clear that both have erred in their placing of some of the horses at certain periods of the race, but this in our opinion docs not affect their honesty as witnesses. AYe do not propose to go through the evidence in detail, but think it sufficient beyond all reasonable doubt that there was deliberate interference by Kennie and M'Kae with other horses during the race to assist Dress Circle to win the race in question. AYe accept Maguire's statement that there was an attempt at interference with him by Kennif coming into the straight; we also accept the evidence of Syme in respect of a conversation between Gilmer and himself subsequent to the race in which I Gilmer admitted pulling his horse in the race in question to allow Dress Circle to win, but in our opinion this statement of Gilmer's is not evidence against other jockeys whom Gilmer states were associated with him in the conspiracy. Considerable evidence was called to establish general knowledge by the jockeys that the race was, in sporting parlance, 'a ready.' Such knowledge invariably .arose from rumour and hearsay evidence, and we disregard it. It remains, therefore, to consider what evidence (if any) there is against Thomson and Holland in connection with this race. Thomson rode the' winner Dress Circle, and there was strong evidence that Ronnie called out to Thomson as Thomson took advantage of an opening which had been left by Kennie for this purpose, 'Go for your life, Kangi.' Thomson denies that he heard this. AYe were not impressed with the manner in which Thomson gave his evidence, but have come to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to convict Thomson. So also with regard to Holland: there is no direct evidence to implicate him. The bump which his horse got early in the race may have been accidental, and thereafter he was last for the rest of the race. Under these circumstances we do not think the statement by M'Rae that Holland was a party to a similar 'ready' at the previous Takapuna Meeting, while relevant and important, sufficient to implicate Holland in the race in question. THE SECOND DAY'S RACE. "AYe deal now with the Tarawera Highweight Handicap on tlie second day," continues the judgment, "and start with two outstanding circumstances: First, it is admitted by every jockey, including M'Rae, who rode Lady Cintra, that on its running on the first day Lady Cintra had a poor chance oil the second day—so muck so that the jockeys termed those who backed Lady Cintra on the second day 'mad.' The second circumstance was that while Lady Cintra only had 200 tickets out of a total of 2112 on the first day, in which it ran such a poor race, on the second day in a similar race, with practically the same horses7, it carried SBB tickets out of 2203. These are material and relevant facts which cannot be disregarded in considering the running of the race in question. Now, it is obvious that at a comparatively early stage of the race' Lady Cintra received a check, after which it was never prominent. It is also clear that when the horse returned M'Rae, the l'idci' of Lady Cintra,.was in a very bad temper, and immediately upon dismounting ho complained to a stipendiary steward that Syme, rider of AViltshiro, had interfered with him deliberately as the horses were nearing the straight, thus spoiling a good winning chance. M'Rac's complaint was obviously untrue. It was apparent to those of us who saw the race, as well as •to the stipendiai'y steward, that at the place in question Symo was well in front of Lady Cintra, and (his fact the

stipendiary steward pointed out to M'Kao. We must ask ourselves why M'Kao ivas so incensed, why he made a false complaint of interference, and »'hy lie made it against Syme? AYe are also satisiicd that Hennie attempted to interfere with Syme during the race in question. It is clear that Thomson, who rode Captain Cobham, got away badly, and was last during the whole o£ the journey. We accept Mr. Hannon's statement that the horse was not sound, and was incapable o£ doing any better than it did. Under those circumstances, there is no evidence to connect Thomson with the conspiracy. SOME STRONG COMMENT. "Wo therefore find that in the Pohutu High-weight Handicap on 11th February, Kounio, M'Hao, and Gilmer rode with the intention of assisting Dreas Circle to win, and that in the Tarawera High-weight Handicap on 13th February, Mllae and Ronnie were party to a conspiracy that M'Hae's horse, Lady Cintra, should win. We must comment on the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence given by many of the jockeys, who had some knowledge or belief that there was an arrangement for Lady Cintra to win this race, but in giving their evidence, found it impossible to say how they acquired this knowledge, save through rumours. • So, for example, Wiggins warned Burgess before the race that this arrangement existed, and that Burgess should therefore get out at the start as quickly as possible, and endeavour to avoid trouble. We feel it our duty to state also that we are dissatisfied with the evidence given by F. E. Loomb, owner-trainer of Lady Cintra. Loomb stated that M'Rae, when handing over the marc at the conclusion of the race, said thnt the mare could not raise a gallop. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to M'Rae's statement that he had been interfered with by Syme, and a good winning chance thereby spoiled. Moreover, it is absurd to expect us to believe that a jockey and head boy, in the confidence of his trainer, as M'Rae was, would advise Loomb that the mare could not raise a gallop, and forthwith go to a stipendiary steward in a towering rage, and complain that a good winning chance had been interfered with. We repeat that in our opinion Loomb's evidence was unsatisfactory, unconvincing, and extremely difficult to accept. As a considerable time elapsed after the race before Loomb's statement was taken, and as Loomb suffera to some extent from deafness, we propose only to record the impression left upon us by the evidence given by Loomb. DISQUALIFICATIONS IMPOSED. "We disqualify Rennie and Gilmer for a period of twelve months from this date (11th June) for corrupt practice under Rule 32, Section 1, Part N., Rules of Racing; and we disqualify M'Rae under the same rule for a period of six months from this date. We find the evidence insufficient to convict Thomson and Holland, but draw the attention of the District Committee to the statement made by M'Rae as to Holland's malpractice at a previous Takapuna Meeting. Carmontdid not appear to answer the charges against him, owing to his having suffered injury on the previous day. It will still be necessary to deal with the charges against him, and we have accordingly omitted reference to Carmont in this judgment."