GRAY’S DISQUALIFICATION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1144, 14 March 1912, Page 7

GRAY’S DISQUALIFICATION.

The disqualification of Hector Gray by the Dannevirke Jockey Club has excited unusual interest in racing circles, and is likely to have a salutary effect on other jockeys who have recently deserved but escaped a similar fate. Since the Appeal Board of the Racing Conference reversed, on technical grounds, the disqualification of Barlow and Julian indicted by the Egmont and Wanganui clubs respectively, there appears to have been a general laxity on the part of racingstewards to enquire into cases of foul riding and other As a natural contingency to such laxity jockeys have become bolder, and in many cases have been openly guilty of practices that should have at least called for reprimand, if not disqualification. THE DUTIES OF STEWARDS. The stewards of the Dannevirke Racing Club deserve credit for the stand they have taken in the interests of clean sport, and it is to be hoped

that the officials of other clubs will take courage from the stand taken at Dannevirke, and more carefully scrutinize the riding of jockeys, and if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, hold exhaustive enquiries, and where the facts warrant it to inflict severe penalties on offenders. If racing stewards are not going to impartially carry out their duties to the public, it is high time the Racing Conference decided on the appointment of Stipendiary Stewards. The public as well as owners are entitled to protection against the malpractices of unscrupulous jockeys. Doubtless there will be an appeal lodged by Gray against the disqualification inflicted on him, and, of course, there is no reason why the matter should not be thoroughly sifted, for the aggrieved horseman is entitled to exhaust every means to clear his charactor ' A QUESTION OF FACT. The resolution passed by the Dannevirke Racing Club stewards is a strongly-worded one, reading as follows: “Having seen Gray’s riding and heard his explanation of it, we find as a fact that he deliberately and obviously rode his mount not to win, and deliberately interfered with Ladino’s chance of winning. He is accordingly disqualified for twelve months.” This leaves no possible doubt that the stewards of the club were honestly convinced that the facts fully justified them in the disqualification they pass>-

ed, but possibly Gray may have some other evidence he can adduce to mitigate the alleged offence. If so he is entitled to be heard, but we trust that the Appeal Board will not on this occasion, as in the cases of Barlow and Julian, rely on a technicality to upset a decision if the facts support evidence the stewards of the Dannevirke Racing Club acted upon. EMBARRASSED STEWARDS. It has- often been urged that the Racing Conference should revise the rules dealing with the. powers of stewards of country clubs so as to clear away many of the intricacies and simplify the whole code. On this point we quote from a contemporary: “Since the inception into the Rules of Racing of definition of a ‘question of fact,’ there have been endless misgivings and misunderstandings, and though an Instance of gross inteiference may occur under their very eyes, those in charge of a race meeting feel so embarrassed with the intricacies of racing law as it now stands, that they prefer to adopt all too indulgent •

an attitude rather than stand the racket of having their decision overruled by a higher court.’ JOCKEYS AND BETTING. As already stated, the laxity of stewards in failing to take more stringent measures to check malpractices and foul riding is having a very detrimental effect on the sport of racing: but there is another matter that calls for urgent attention, which, if not promptly checked, will go far to alienate. public sympathy with racing clubs. We refer to the way in which jockeys are permitted to disregard the rule w’hich reads: —“No jockey shall bet on any horse in any race in which he rides, except on the horse ridden by himself, and then only through or with the permission of the owner.” BETTING ON DOUBLES. Referring to this subject the “Weekly Press’ says:—“This rule is grossly disobeyed, and we have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there are plenty,of stewards of racing clubs who clearly know that the rule is being broken on every day on which races take place. It is a common question for the average racegoer to ask what double such and such a jockey is backing. The other jockeys already know the selected double, and according to definite statements they do not hesitate to ‘get in on’ the right combination.” The fact that betting on

doubles is illegal does not in any way deter jockeys and their associates getting satisfactory - odds on the selected, combinations. A JOCKEYS’ RING. On more than one occasion during the last few weeks we have known of certain well-known jockeys who have backed winning doubles and even telegraphed the “tip’ through to their friends. The doubles referred to ‘came off” but the same jockey did not ride the two horses that won the respective doubles. There can be n» question that there is a “jockeys’ ring” and it is incumbent on the authorities to take stringent steps to break up the ring, and also to see that the rule quoted above is strictly observed.