By Cliff Williams, ContributorTHE SUCCESSFUL appeal against the decision by the raceday stewards to disqualify GOINGTOKANSASCITY from first position recently has once again brought into focus the functions of the operation stewards as it relates to the interpretation of incidents taking place in the races.
This particular case has been an interesting one from the point of view that the horse in question did not actually make contact with any of its rivals nor take the ground of any, but the sharp movement from an outside position was deemed to be intimidatory.
Obviously when it gets into the realm of intimidation the operation stewards if they disqualify, as in the case of GOINGTOKANSASCITY, the decision is a lot harder to justify and may very well be subjected to a different interpretation by an appellant body with a lot more time to apply the principles.
Intimidation therefore has great subjectivity involved and disqualification on this ground has been rather rare. Whilst it is quite legitimate for the stewards to take this into account, judging by the reaction of the majority of those who saw the replay, it is now clear that there is little or no general understanding of what constitutes intimidation.
In reacting to the decision to disqualify GOINGTOKANSASCITY most persons that I came in contact with expressed the view that there was no interference since neither taking of ground or contact took place. What this means also is that there is no general understanding that intimidation is a legitimate basis for disqualification.
Earlier this week, I participated in a radio programme with Lloyd Cobran, Chief Operation Steward of the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) and he sought to throw some light on the matter of intimidation in this particular instance of the GOINGTOKANSASCITY disqualification. Basically what he is saying is that the path chosen by the rider on GOINGTOKANSASCITY and the sharp inward movement induced a reaction from the closest rival that led to a couple of other incidents, which affected the outcome of the race.
This is quite understandable, but where a problem arose for the raceday stewards is that the overwhelming majority of those who saw the replay, including the JRC's appellant body, must have come to the conclusion that the incidents were caused by an over-reaction of the rider of the closest horse to GOINGTOKANSASCITY. Incidentally this horse was disqualified in the final analysis.
There have been two recent cases where the decisions of the raceday stewards have been overturned on appeal and this is being used generally to question the integrity and competence of the stewards panel. This is hardly justified when the terms and conditions of their employment do not allow them to have a vested interest in the outcome of any race, and in any event reversal of their decisions on appeal has been a rarity.
It has to be appreciated that raceday stewards work under the pressure of a time constraint and many of the incidents reviewed can be subjected to different interpretations, so it is inevitable that from time to time there will be reversal of decisions. This is all part of the racing game and is most definitely not peculiar to Jamaica as this is a daily occurrence worldwide.
The JRC and its panel of operation stewards have been doing a reasonable job in protecting the image and the integrity of the industry and whilst there is every right to question the discharge of their functions it should not be done in a manner designed to undermine and demoralise.
