By Cliff Williams, ContributorIN LAST Saturday's edition of the Track & Pools on page 42 there was an article entitled 'The mechanics of stewards inquiry' which sought to explain how a determination was made to have these review of races when necessary to ensure fair play.
No credit was given to the writer of the article but I suppose that we can assume that Lloyd Cobran, chief operation steward of the Jamaica Racing Commission, if not the author, would be aware of the source. In any event it would seem to me that the wording is in official language and it achieved its objective of giving an insight into how the Stewards operate in this respect.
AN IMPORTANT POINT
Interestingly, an important point was made in the article suggesting that the posting of a stewards inquiry sign does not relieve any interested party (owner, trainer, groom or jockey) from the obligation of lodging an objection if in their opinion an incident occurred which affected a horse running in their interest.
Why I find this interesting is that objections by the aforementioned interested parties have now become a rarity and basically there is now a virtual reliance on the stewards for justice. This practice is inadvisable as aggrieved parties may feel the need to appeal later to the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) against the specific decision of the Raceday Stewards not to rule in their favour for any objection lodged.
JOCKEYS RELUCTANT TO TESTIFY
Perhaps what is missing here is that, except for the jockey, the other connections of a horse participating in a race is not in a position to see and make a proper assessment of any incident that may occur. Given the reluctance of the jockeys to testify against their colleagues, which is a very curious aspect of the riding culture here, I think what needs to happen is that the other connections involved be put in a position to come to their own conclusion about any incident.
This would mean that when the Stewards Inquiry sign is posted replays of incidents triggering the investigation should be on the monitors immediately, as is the practice overseas, and the connections given the requisite time to lodge an objection thus removing the over-reliance on their jockey.
The technology is available, and therefore, the time has come for the mere requirement of "informing the public where the incident took place and the identification numbers of the horses involved" to be supplemented by the immediate and several times repeated showing of the infringement under review and investigation in any Inquiry.
Our local raceday stewards should have no problem whatever with this as the punters, who wager on races held outside of Jamaica through simulcast, already enjoys the privilege of viewing incidents whilst the Inquiries take place. This generates a great deal of interest and there is now a better understanding amongst local bettors of how the Stewards at racetracks overseas interpret and apply the guidelines in this regard.
Incidentally the JRC stewards have been exposed to training aboard and are well respected based on reports on their performance in the seminars and refresher courses they are required to attend periodically.
A GOOD START
The Track & Pools' article on the stewards inquiry is a good start and I think should now be followed up by a series setting out the interpretation and application of the Racing Rules with respect to incidents in races as well as the duties and responsibilities of the JRC stewards.
Over to you Mr. Cobran as there are thousands who do not possess copies of the rules and are not in a position to access the website.
