SPORTING.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 143647, 15 November 1911, Page 7

SPORTING.

RACING APPEALS. DECISION OF THE JUDGES. CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 13. During last week the judge® appointed by the New Zealand Racing conference hoard two appeal cases, ui which a considerable amount of interest was taken. Their decision® arc a® inflow:— THE JULIAN CASE. In the matter of the appeal of A. J. Julian, jockey, against uie decision ot the Wanganui MeLrupulitau Committee in dismaying ins appeal against tiio decision ui tile Wanganui o oe.tey Club, suspending him irom ruling racenorseo m a\l*vv Zealand lor a period oi twelve month® uom May 24, r'Jli : This is an a pi) oak by Arthur Janies Julian irom tile decision ol the W anganui Metropolitan Committee, coni inning the decision or the stewards or lire 'W angauui Jockey Club, given on July 28 last. Hie charge made ugain.se Julian was that ol wiuuliy pulling the horse Nappor in the Ivauoke Hurdle Race, run on May 21, 1911, contrary to the rules oi racing. Ilie evidence in support of tho charge was- the t-esiimony ui oix of tiie stewards, who witnessed the race in question, but who, with one exception, disclaimed having oosorved any deliberate pulling by'Julian, ’j hey wue, however, practically unanimous in Use opinion that Julian aid not rule his l\orse cat t-o the end ol the race, and that, it lie had, he would have had a reasonable chance oi winning. it is clear to us that the in giving their evidence, had m their minds that Julian had committed a breach ol the rule which provides that jockeys shall ride their liur.se® out to the end ot the race il they have a reasonable chance ol winning or running second. Ac the conclusion of the evidence, it appears by the minutes of the meeting ol the steward®, tho chairman explained to the meeting ‘‘that wilfully pulling was not dciined by tho Rule® oi Racing, but that il was a broach of Rule 0, Fart 26, and also of Rule 1, Clause (n), Fart 33, ol the Rules of Racing. In .my opinion, any riding in contravention or Rule 6 would 1)0 correctly described as pulling. It was not necessary for a jockey to he back and puli 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.”

Alter several or the stewards had expressed their concurrence with ' the chairman’s opinion a resolution was passed embodying tho decision already set out. There can be no doubt, therefore, that, in passing tho resolution, the stewards accepted the interpretation of the rules expressed by the chairman as before mentioned. We arc unable to agree with this interpretation. Failure, on tho part of a jockey to rido his horse out under an honest, but mistaken, belief that he has no chance of winning or getting second place, would be a breach of Rule 6, Fart 26, rendering the jockey liable to a fine, hut would not ho fraudulent 'practice under Rule 1, Clause (n) of Fart 33.

But failure to ride a horse out not under the belief that tho horse could not win, but under the belief that the horee could and would win if ridden out, and with the object of avoiding winning, would be not only a broach of Rule 6, Part 26, but ako a fraudulent practice, under Rule 1, Clause (n). Fart 33. The chairir.au, in effect, held that rid. ing 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 of the rules was erroneous, inasmuch as the logical result would be that the mere failure to ride a horse out, as provided, would be a fraudulent practice, involving the possible disqualification of the jockey which in our opinion, would be unreasonable. As, therefore, w© think that the stewards’ decision was based upon what we consider to be an erroneous interpretation of the rules, we allow the appeal, and reverse the'decisions of the stewards and the Metropolitan Committee. The disqualification of the jockey, A. J. Julian, is therefore removed. We 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 that, if the stewards of the Wanganui Jockey Club had found him guilty of failing to rido his horso out wo should not have been disposed to disturb that decision. W r © direct the deposit to be refunded. (Signed)

George Clifford (chairman). P. Miller. T. W. Stringer. Christchurch, Nov. 10, 1911. THE BARLOW CASE. In the matter of the appeal of the Egmont Racing Club against the decision of the Taranaki Metropolitan Committee reversing the decision of the Egmont Racing Club, disqualifying 11. Barlow, jockey, for twelve months from May 17, 19H, for pulling Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap, run at the Egmont Racing Club’s meeting: The charge made against Robert Barlow by the Judicial Committee of the Egmont Racing Club was: “That, on May 17, 1911, while riding Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap at the Egmont Racing Club’s meeting, he did wilfully pull bis mount, contrary to Rule 6, Part 26, of the Rules of Racing,” After an inquiry, the committee passer! the following resolution:—“That R. Barlow be disqualified for twelve montlis for wilfully palling Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap at the .Egmont meeting, the disqualification to d'ato from May 17, 1911.”

Barlow then appealed to tho Metropolitan Committee, who allowed the appeal, and reversed tho decision of 'tho Judicial Committee. The Egmont Racing Club thereupon appealed to the Now Zealand Racing Conference on the ground that tho decision of tho Judicial Committee was upon a question of fact, and was, therefore, conclusive under Rule 7, Part 31, of tjio Rules of Racing. As already pointed out, the charge made against Barlow was for a breach of Rule 6, Part 26, which, ns former judges have held, involves a matter of opinion, and is, therefore, appealable. Moreover, having regard to the fact that, of tho four stewards who witnessed the occurrence giving rise to the charge against Barhnv, two only were satisfied that Barlow had wilfully pulled his mount, while tho other two wore in doubt upon tho question, wo cannot think that ,the evidence of vilfnlly pulling was at all satisfactory. We think that the decision of tho Metropolitan Committee upon the merits of the case was right, and that tho appeal of tho Rgmont Racing Club should bo dismissed. AVc desire to add that, in our apiniou, Rules 7 and .8 of Part 31 of tho

Rules of Racing are inconsistent, and should lie amended by the New Zealand Racing Conference in the direction of defining exactly upon what questions the decisions of steward® should be regarded as final and conclusive. Tho deposit lodged by the Egmout Racing Club will bo refunded, (Signed) George Clifford (chairman). * I*. Miller. T. W, Stringer. Christchurch, Nov. 10, 1911. LAST WEEK’S RACING. (Lyttelton Times.) Twenty years ago when tho number of permits* to use tho totalisator were far more numerous than they arc now the .sum of £506.078 was passed through the machine by.the.public at 300 days* racing during twelve months. Last week, J beginning on the Saturday and ending on the Saturday, at seven days’ racing, the sum of £215,718 through at Riccarton and Adm-igton alone. In 1891 the investments during three da>s* racing nt tho Canterbury Jockey Club’s metropolitan meeting amounted to £56,321; in 1911 the investments during four days’ racing at the corresponding meeting amounted to £137,339. In 1891 the investments during two days’ trotting at Plumnton Park and Lancaster Park amounted to £6170; in 19*1 the investments during three days’ trotting at Addington amounted to £78.329. The growth of the speculation at the tiro local meetings since last year is shown in tho following figures: CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB. 1910. 1911. £. £. First day 27,172 39,857 Second day 20,439 32.959 Third day 19.882 29,923 Fourth day 22.3-12 34,645 90,135 137,339 AIETROPOLITAN TROTTING CLUB. 1910. 1911. £ £ First clay 17,036 27,418 Second day 14,085 21,10 t Third day 10,767 20,457 £50,888 £78,329 In face of those figures no one is likely to seriously contend that the totalizator ha® tended to lessen the gambling spirit that is abroad in the community. Tho best that can bo said for the machine is that it has enabled the racing clubs ’to provide substantial stake® for the owners of horse® and tho kind of sport tho public appear to enjoy. Whether it is improving the breed of horses, as some fo tho authorities like to tell us, is ctill an open question, but the benefits derived from sprint races and hoppled trotters were not strikingly obvious at the Show Grounds on Thursday and Friday. It must bo said for such institutions as the Canterbury Jockey Club, however, that they are making an honest effort to turn to good account the huge revenue they derive from tho totalisator and that their courses are all the cleaner for the exclusion of even less desirable form® of gambling.