GOLD COAST JAN 14 - STEWARDS COP A CANING FOR MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION

By Graham Potter | Monday, January 16, 2012

Let’s cut through all of the rhetoric and outrage.

A runner first across the line with the winning margin of a neck simply cannot expect to keep the race if it shifts out four wide over the final 70m of a close contest, inconveniences the runner on his outside to the extent that the rider of that horse has to put his whip away at a crucial stage ... while the rider of the horse shifting ground continues to make maximum use of his stick and get all of the benefit that encouragement implies.

With the runner-up disadvantaged by the winner’s indiscretion, the protest and the subsequent reversal of the placings would be considered the correct outcome.

Wade Birch and his team of stewards were responsible for overseeing this exact scenario in the now much publicized ‘controversial’ outcome of the Magic Millions Two-Year-Old Classic and they’ve copped a caning for making the right decision.

I don’t always agree with stewards assessments, but when they get it right, let’s say so.

The weight of public opinion against the verdict seemingly stems from a belief that because No Looking Back (Nash Rawiller) came from behind and headed Driefontein (Tommy Berry) before shifting ground, the latter was never going to beat her. That is supposition and, to be fair, so is the opinion that Driefontein would ultimately have got up if allowed a fair run.

All kinds of theoretical possibilities can be raised to support both arguments.

No Looking Back was just running away from the whip which Nash Rawiller was wielding with meaning in his right hand … or was she? Maybe the horse was in fact hanging out under pressure, feeling the effects of a hard run having had eight weeks in-between outings!

Rawiller should have put his own whip away or changed hands and straightened his mount. In so doing he would have avoided causing interference and won anyway … or would he? Maybe Rawiller didn’t stop riding because he knew the horse had given its all and would falter if not vigourously encouraged. Maybe he was aware that Driefontein posed a strong presence and could well come back and beat him if he slackened on his mount or gave Driefontein more room!

And so on and so on …

It’s fascinating stuff. These debates are really what racing is all about … but the bottom line has to be based in reality and the fact of the matter is that No Looking Back cost Driefontein her fair crack at the title. Everything else is debatable. That fact is not.

No Looking Back had come from behind Driefontein, but she was not going away from her. The latter was still right there … still full of fight … and was still right on No Looking Back’s case at the line, just a neck back, in spite of being carried out across the track.

Hence the stewards made the correct decision.

Perhaps more of a story is what happened after the horses crossed the line.

There is a strictly outlined protocol for putting in a protest. Several parties (the jockey, the trainer … the stewards themselves) are entitled to do so.

In the normal run of events the aggrieved party views the race film to ascertain whether he or she has reasonable cause to protest. They then confirm to the stewards whether they will protest, or not. If the former, the protest hearing is immediately convened and completed.

At the Gold Coast, Tommy Berry asked to view the film. He did so in the company of his rival rider Nash Rawiller and trainer Gai Waterhouse (who had saddled both No Looking Back and Driefontein).

Nothing unusual there.

But then, instead of either Berry or Waterhouse making a decision right after viewing the film (as is customary), they, together with Rawiller excused themselves. They moved into the corridor adjacent to the stewards’ room and proceeded to have a private, serious, animated discussion.

Plenty unusual there.

Firstly, for possible complainants to be allowed the time to retire to discuss the matter is not common practice. Then, for both jockeys, who would have to give individual, independent evidence if a protest was proceeded with to be involved in the same discussion can, at best, be described as an error of judgment on the part of the stable.

Given the stress of the moment they can perhaps be forgiven, but it was not an appropriate exercise.

It is worth noting that rule AR. 165 (4) reads, ‘no person shall improperly deter or attempt to deter a person qualified to object from making an objection,’ and AR. 165 (5) reads, ‘no person shall improperly encourage or improperly attempt to encourage a person qualified to object to make an objection.’

By quoting these rules I certainly do not to suggest that anything ‘improper’ was taking place or that any rule was broken. What I am suggesting is that there is a degree of ‘sensationalist’ perception out there that is best negated by prudent behavior.

In this case it clearly would have been better had Waterhouse spoken to her jockeys separately, if indeed she felt it necessary to speak to both jockeys.

The apparent indecision that took place in the Waterhouse camp even after that discussion further delayed proceedings. If reports are accurate, Birch indicated that if the rider did not proceed with a protest after Berry's famous 'probably not' comment, the stewards would … and it was only then that Berry formally lodged the protest.

That begs another question.

If a steward was going to lodge a protest, he would have obviously had to recluse himself from the protest hearing. Yet with Berry finally coming through with his own protest call, that steward, whoever he was going to be, was now free to take his place on the panel, an idea which might not sit right with some people.

Again no rule was broken as no steward actually lodged a protest, so all had a right to sit on the panel. There is no doubt that due process was followed.

That fact reduces this point to a minor technicality, but the consideration of a possible 'protesting’ steward’s position should be handled with some delicacy if a similar situation occurs in the future to protect the interests of all parties.

In the end, it was all raw drama … with all the blood and guts of a $1 million tug-of-war over the first prize.

There were big winners and big losers in this race result that was eventually played out in the stewards’ room and the debate will rage on until the next ‘issue’ comes along when it will quickly be confined to history.

Chances are we won't have to wait long for that.

There always seems to be something waiting right around the corner.

More articles