EXPLANATION NEEDED

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 106, 31 October 1931, Page 21

EXPLANATION NEEDED

INCIDENTS AT WAIPAWA

Perhaps it was coincidence that the riders of two of the five horses to weigh in for the Waipawa County Handicap, the principal race at the Waipawa Meeting on Monday, scaled übove the two pounds allowed under the Rules of Racing. Perhaps it was still a further coincidence, not to malign tho word, that each rider was the same amount in excess, four pounds. Apparently the official heads nf racing have been satisfied to let the matter rest, as the clerk of the scaies and stipendiary steward found and left it. Is this fair play to jockeys and owners?

The race in question was won by Goshawk narrowly from Aemil, with Cuticle, Shrewd, and Rory Mor next. L. Daly was on Aemil and W. Monk on Rory Mor. Rory Mor seems to have been weighed in when Aemil failed to draw within the limits set hy the Rules.

From investigations made it would appear that Di.y and Monk were the first to weigh out for the race, both going to the scale at the same time and each being passed by the clerk of the scales. The riders of the other hordes weighed out later. When they returned to the scales after the race the weight registered was four pounds iii excess of what they had weighed out at. One of the riders concerned was surprised at his weight when weighed out, as he knew he had been unable to draw within three pounds of what the scales said earlier in the day, but, after merely noting the fact casually, added the required lead.

Those with any 'experience of the average weighing room know that the officials in charge are paramount, sometimes autocratic, and that jockeys are not allowed much liberty of debate. Even if a rider were certain that the scales lied in most cases he would not open, or at least continue, an argument about it. Jockeys have learnt to their cost at times that a little talk, reasonable or otherwise, can be quickly closed with fines, against which in fact they have no redress.

The Waipawa incident calls for inquiry beyond what it has been given. It may be that both riders made exactly the same fault, but it is unlikely in the extreme. If it is so clear that probably the mistake was not theirs,' why should they be called on to bear the brunt? Each rider is striving his best to establish himself in his profession, and incidents such as these are always a mark against him when seeking future riding engagements. The case is one that the conference would appear to be duty bound to reopen, Rules or no rules, and if the error, on reasonable sifting of the available evidence, is shown to be more likely that of an official than of the riders concerned, then public clearance is most patently the due of the persons who are at present carrying the blame.

The control of the Waipawa Meeting was not satisfactory in • other respects. Autumn Dawn's rider, M. Gilmour, was fined £5 for not weighing in after finishing third, and the horse was deprived of the placing. The obligation is on the rider to comply with the rules, but in a four-horse race one can hardly understand how a rider of one of the placed horses could be let pass into the jockeys' room without the fact of his not having weighed in' being rioted. Explanation of the Waipawa incidents would do a lot to satisfy the public, as the bare facts are themselves very vague, and can bo twisted into many provocative shapes.