RACING PROTESTS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 10, 22 December 1932, Page 2

RACING PROTESTS

EVIDENCE FROM RIDERS. SOME ENGLISH OPINION. When interference, leading to a protest, occurs within easy view of the stewards, says the Sydney writer “Pilot,” X can never see there is any necessity for evidence to be asked of jockeys other than the two immediately concerned. If the trouble occurs some distance away from where the stewards witness the race it is different. After entering the straight the average jockey is too much occupied with his own mount to be able to say with definiteness what has happened to others.

For that matter there arc jockeys who know little about a race apart from the fact that they started and finished, and that is why jockeys ’ accounts of what occurred in some big race or other are often more astounding than reliable. At one time protests at big meetings in England were considered “bad form,” but last season they were numerous, and in discussing them, and the undesirableness of jockeys’ evidence, a contributor to a leading London paper wrote as follows after a disqualification in a big race at Newmarket.

“The evidence of one or two of the jockeys riding in the race was taken. 1 think it would have been better had the stewards dispensed with that sort of evidence. The alleged crossing occurred under their ( own eyes, and what one jockey or another may have said ought not to have influencefl them in the smallest degree. “It is not at any time agreeable for a jockey to be called on as a witness either for or against a brother professional. There is a danger that his evidence may be tinged by .bias, and my view is that the stewards make a great mistake in attaching importance to the stories told to them by the riders. TRUST THEIR OWN EYES. “What better testimony can the stewards require than their eyesight when incidents in running occur in the last quarter of a mile or so? The frequency of these objections a.t Newmarket may bo merely a coincidence, but it is not too much to say that they are causing considerable disquietude among racing people. “Further, disqualifications should ,-not be made unless it is overwhelmingly clear that a horse has earned so drastic a penalty. If there is any doubt at all I anr convinced that the benefit of it should be given to the winner. Disqualifications on , flimsy grounds or on the so-called evidence of jockeys are deplorable, and cannot be in the best interests of racing.” LUCKY WINS. I am in accord with most of the above opinions, “Pilot” continues. Admittedly the effect of interference upon a horse’s chance cannot always be correctly gauged, but when it is practically certain something qould not have won if it had escaped interference, it is a matter of opinion whether the stewards should stick to the strict letter of the law. In Sydney during the past few weeks I think two horses were lucky in having races credited them through interference, as it was improbable they would have succeeded to the prize in their respective races if they had escaped it. I refer to Tingalba and Servius. Still, when certain things are set forth ,by the rules, I suppose the stewards reckon the wisest plan is to adhere to them as closely as possible. It at least saves them from giving different decisions in cases that are somewhat similar.