RACING APPEALS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 81, 17 November 1911, Page 8

RACING APPEALS.

FULL JUDGMENT. THE BARLOW AND JULIAN CASES. Christchurch, November 13. During last week the judges appointed by the New Zealand Racing Conference heard two appeal cases, in which a considerable amount ol interest was taken. Iheir decisions are as follow : The Julian Case.

In the matter of the appeal of A. J. Julian, jockey, against the decision of the Wanganui Metropolitan Committee in dismissing his appeal against iho decision of the Wanganui Jockey Club, suspending him from riding racehorses in New Zealand for a period of twelve months from. May 21th, 1911: This ig. an appeal by Arthur James Julian from the decision of the Wanganui Metropolitan Committee, confirming the decision of the stewards of the Wanganui Jockey Club, given on July 28th last.

The charge made against Julian was that of wilfully pulling the horse Napper in the Kaitoke Hurdle Race, run on May 2-lth, 1911, contrary to the rules of racing. The evidence in support of the charge was the testimony of six of the stewards, who witnessed the race in question, but who. with one exception, disclaimed having observed any deliberate pulling by Julian. They were, however, practically unanimous in the opinion that Julian did not ride his horse out to the end of the race, and tnat, if ho had, he would have had a reasonable chance of winning. It is clear 19 us that the witnesses, in giving their evidence, had in their minds that Julian had committed a breach of the rule which provides that jockeys shall ride their liors.es out to the end of the race if they have a reasonable chance of winning; or running second. At the conclusion of the evidence, it appears by.the minutes of the meeting of the stewards, that the chairman explained to the meeting:— “That wilfully pulling was not defined by the Rules of Racing, but that it was a breach of Rule

G, Part XXVI., and also of Rule 1, clause (n), Part XXXIII. of the Rules of Racing. In my opinion, any riding in contravention of Rule G would be correctly described as pulling. It was not necessary for a jockey to lie back, and pull his reins so as to check the horse, but any other strategy exercised by a jockey with a view to checking the horse 'would, in my opinion, amount to pulling.” After several of the stewards had expressed their concurrence with the chairman’s opinion a resolution vas passed embodying the decision already set out. -There can he no doubt, therefore, that, in passing the 1 evolution, the stewards accepted the interpretation of the rules expressed by the chairman as before-mentioned.

We are unable to agree with this interpretation. Failure on the part o fa jockey to ride his horse out under an honest, but mistaken, belief that he has no chance of winning or getting second place, would bo a breach of Rule 0, Tart XXVl.,'.rendering' the jockey liable to a' lino, but would not lie fraudulent practice under Rule *l, clause (n) of Part XXXIII. But failure to ride a horse out not under the belief that the horse could not win, but under the belief that the horse could and would win if ridden out, and with the object of avoiding winning, would be not only a breach of Rule (5, Part XXVI., but also a fraudulent practice, under Rule 1, clause (n), Part XXXIII. The chairman, in effect, hold that riding in contravention of Rule 6 was “pulling,” and that such “pulling” was necessarily a fraudulent practice. As before stated, wo think that such an interpretation the rules was erroneous, inasmuch as the logical result would bp, that, the jnere failure to ride a horse out,,as provided, would be a .fraudulent practice,, involving the possible .disqualification,,,of the jockey, which, in our opiginn, ~ ould be unreasonable. •... As therefore we.think that the stewards’ decision was based upon >V at we Consider to bo an erroneous interpretation of. the rules, we allow the appeal, and reverse the decisions of the stewards and the Metrop ilitan Committee. The disqualification of the jockey, A. J. Julian, is therefore removed.' Wo think it right to add that, in our opinion, the riding of Julian on the occasion in question was suspicious, and justified an inquiry, and tljat, if the stewards of the Wanganui Jockey Club bad found him guilty of failing to ride his horse out, wo should not have been disposed to disturb that decision. We direct the deposit to ho refunded. (Signed)George Clifford (chairman). P. Miller. ' T. W. Stringer. Christchurch, November 10, 1911.

The Barlow Cace. In the matter of the appeal of the Egmont Racing Club against the decision of the Taranaki Metropolitan Committee reversing the decision of the Figment Racing Chib, disqualifying R. Barlow, jockey, for twelve months from May 17, 1911, for pulling Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap, run at the Egmont Racing Club’s meeting: The charge made against Robert Barlow by the .Indicia! Committee of the Egm out Racing Club was: “That, on May .17, 1911, while riding Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap at the Egmont Racing Club’s meeting, ho did wilfully pull his mount, contrary to Rule 6, Fart XXVI., of the Rules of Racing.” After an enquiry, the committee passed the following resolution : “That R. Barlow lie disqualified for twelve months for wilfully pulling Master Sylvia, in the Railway Handicap at the Egmont meeting, the disqualification to

(Into from May 17, Hill.” Marlow tlicn appealed to the Metropolitan Committee, who allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the judicial committee. The Eminent Racing Cluh thereupon appealed to the New Zealand Racing Conference on the ground that the decision of the, judicial committee was upon a question of fact, and was, therefore,' conclusive, under Rule 7, Part XXXf.j. of the Ruler, of Racing.

As already pointed out, the charge made against Marlow was for a breach of Rule (i, Part XXVI., which, as former judges have hold, involves a. matter of opinion, and is, therefore, appealable. Moreover, having regard to the fact that, of the four stewards who witnessed the occurrence giving rise to the charge against Marlow, two only wore satisfied that Marlow had wilfully pulled his mount, while the other two were in doubt upon the question, we cannot think that the evidence of wilfully pulling was at all satisfactory. We think that tin' decision of the Metropolitan Committo upon the merits of the case was right ,and that the appeal of the Kgmont Racing Club should he dismissed. Wo desire to add that, in our opih-

ion, Rules 7 and 8 of Part XXXI. of the Rules of Racing are inconsistent, and should ho amended by the New Zealand Racing ...Conference in the direction of defining exactly upon what questions tho decisions of stewards should ho regarded as final and conclusive. The deposit lodged by the Egmont Racing Club will he refunded. (Signed) George Clifford (chairman), P. Miller, T. W. Stringer. Christchurch, November 10, 1911.