K. Voitre’s Suspension and District Committee’s Action

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 5614, 31 March 1931, Page 4

K. Voitre’s Suspension and District Committee’s Action

During the running of the Fraser Memorial Handicap on the second day of the recent annual race meeting of the Rangitikei Racing Club, an. incident occurred as a result of which the rider of Grand Jury, the lightweight K. Voitre, was suspended for a month by the judicial committee. This meant that he would miss the Wellington meeting which followed a few days later, at which he was engaged for a large number of events, while he would not be allowed to ride at any other meeting before Easter, Yet Voitre was in the saddle again at the recent Manawatu meeting, this being as a result of the action of the Wanganui District Commibteo in not endorsing the suspension. This called forth comment from a Wellington writer, who took the District Committee to task over its action, . suggesting that in reversing the decision they had, in effect, broken one of the unwritten rules of racing—that the constituent parts of the Donpnion’s racing judiciary did not deliberately counter the decisions of each other unless they were, particularly asked to do so by way of east stated on appeal. The writer also suggested that had the committee, not questioning the guilt, simply varied -the sentence, as for example, if it had reduced the sentence to two weeks, which would have had ihe same practical effect as reversal, it would not have acted extraordinarily, nor offended against any unwritten law. Such variations were occasionally made. Instead, it said, in effect, that the Rangitikei Club’s Judicial Commit-

tee was wholly wrong in its finding, and tihat its members erroneously interpreted the evidence placed before them. This amounted to nothing less than severe public reprimand of the officials of one racing unit by the officials of another.

“Kestrel,” of the Wanganui Chronicle, makes the following comment on the Wellington writer’s article: “It would appear that the Wanganui Dis-

’ trict Committee did not. consider it necessaary to follow the alternative suggested by the Wellington writer, that of reducing the sentence to two weeks, half of which period had elapsed at the time the meeting was held. It was not incumbent on them to uphold the sentence, else why hold the meeting? They had before them the evidence as taken at the meeting of the judicial committee of the Bangitikei

Racing Club, while they also had the opportunity of hearing R. Hatch, to whom Voitrc is apprenticed. Surely the members of the District Committee arc competent to weigh up the evidence offered and adjudicate thereon. The action of the committee was endorsed by a representative of the judicial committee of the Rangitikei Racing Club, and that should be sufficient for all concerned.”