BARLOW'S BREAK.

NZ Truth, Issue 309, 27 May 1911, Page 2

BARLOW'S BREAK.

Were the Stewards Unjust?

That the Hawera stewards made a grievous error last week m suspending R. Barlow, rider of Master Sylvia, for allegedly pulling his mount, and not trying to win, seems to be the verdict of one and all who were present at the meeting, and probably by the time these notes are printed, the club will have yielded to the strongly-expressed wish that the New Plymouth horseman should be granted a rehearing. "Spearmint" saw the race from the home turn m company with many others, and my opinion formed then is the same as it is now : That the horse was fairly beaten, and that the rider was doing his best to win. The horse was jumped off m front, ■ and led to the two-furlong post, where Sandy Paul ran up to him, | and m less than a furlong had him beaten. Barlow, on realising this, looked round, and, quickly sizing up the situation, he refrained from riding his mount out; and was content with second place. This was all that occurred, and, as a result, the rider m question received a spell for 12 months, a verdict that staggered not only Barlow, but everybody on the course. At the inquiry, Barlow was not allowed to make a statement as to his innocence, neither was he allowed to call any evidence ; and a further request for an adjournment •of the case was met with- a similar Tefusal. The following day petitions were signed asking the club to grant Barlow a rehearing, but whether they will do so or not remains to be seen. As far as can be gathered, ■ ■ what influenced the stewards m ttoeir | .drastic course .was an adverse report by one of their number,' who was on the look-out stand .at the home turn. Now, whilst it is always necessary to take notice of such a report, it should also be borne m mind that as only one steward, was there, it lis quite within the bounds of possibility for him to make a mistake, and, on this account alone, Barlow should have been heard m defence, and allowed to call evidence, such as that of other riders m the race. The owner of the horse was not present but, had Barlow's . request for an adjournment be granted, he could have been produced to .prove that he had backed the horse, and no one who is at all conversant with the position, would suggest for a moment that Barlow "pulled" the horse when the owner was backing it. The present position is that, if -the metropolitan body indorse the disqualification, Barlow will be dei barred from following his calling for twelve months, and this on the opinion of one man, while hundreds could be produced who take a contrary view of the position. Handicapper G. Morse, together with all the members of the press gallery, were of the opinion that the horseman was doing his best, but this carried no weight, though one of the stewards expressed hiimself pretty plainly, to the official mentioned for allowing his opinion to get into the papers, and added that it placed them (the stewards) m an awkward position. It is an awful pity that the Hawera stewards should be placed m an awkward position, but what about poor Barlow ? Is not his position a thousand times worse? It appears as if the stewards are looking for a way out, and realise the awful blunder they have made. Besides, m depriving a man of his livelihood ?or twelve months, with" out hearing a word m defence, is entirely foreign to a British sense of justice- If the stewards are of the opinion that a mistake was made, they should give Barlow the benefit of that opinion and re-open the caseThat, at least, would .be a manly, sportsmanlike course of action.

After an absence of two years from the racecourse Rookby made his reappearance at Hawera, but though fancied by his owner he failed, and was not started on the second day.