THE SUNSHINE COAST NEWSPAPER COLUMN - AN OPPORTUNITY EXISTS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE OLIVER ISSUE

By Graham Potter | Sunday, November 25, 2012

Racing New South Wales has taken a welcome lead in addressing areas of concern in the aftermath of the Damien Oliver betting saga.

While ‘due process’ has been completed and a ten month penalty handed down, the two chief areas of debate within the Oliver story remain a hot topic … namely, at what stage should a jockey who is under investigation for a serious offence be stood down from riding and what penalties are suitable for offences that are serious enough to rock the very foundation of the integrity of the sport.

To many, Oliver appears got off lightly on at least two fronts, both in terms of time to be served and the timing of his disqualification which sits so snugly between major carnivals.

That doesn’t mean anyone wants to put the boot in and nobody I know with that view has any less admiration for Oliver’s outstanding talent in the saddle or any less reverence of his courage and strength of character in overcoming adversity of the worst kind. Those are entirely separate issues to the one at hand.

But the third factor, the fact that Oliver transgressed one of the most basic and important rules of racing, is equally as real and it could leave a lasting legacy of its own … all due, according to Oliver, to one indiscretion.

According to reports emanating out of Sydney, Racing New South Wales has been pivotal in seeking a push from the Australian Racing Board (ARB) to set prescribed minimum penalties for serious offences, largely because of the way the Oliver story played out.

The ARB will examine the New Sales Wales submission which is believed to include a two-year disqualification for a jockey found guilty of betting on races; a two-year disqualification for administering prohibited substances to racehorses; a three-year disqualification for fixing races; and a three-year disqualification for not allowing a horse to race on its merits.

Whether fixed, harsher penalties will provide a better deterrent is difficult to ascertain, given that past perpetrators knew that they would already face serious consequences if caught, but the proposed new deal would at very least bring a much needed level of consistency in terms of punishment terms to proceedings.

That still leaves one question. At what stage of an investigation should a jockey be stood down?

While the Oliver story was unraveling and taking one serious turn after another, Victorian racing authorities allowed Damien Oliver to continue riding throughout the Melbourne Carnival. He did lose rides as certain owners and trainers were apparently more comfortable flying without him on board given the turbulence created by the story. Others stuck firm and benefitted from his expertise.

Should the case have been fast-tracked? Could it have been fast-tracked?

That, in essence, is the poser facing those authorities now. If the answer is yes to either question, than that situation likewise needs to be addressed.

Earlier this week, Australian Racing Board Chief Executive Peter McGauran said, “Recent wrongdoing by both jockeys and trainers have damaged the image and public perception of racing.”

Well, currently there are people out there with the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the manner in which certain cases are handled by authorities … with seemingly accommodating delays and then snugly fitting disqualifications … also damage the image and perception of racing.

It is no easy gig being in charge and I’m not suggesting there is an easy solution.

The bottom line though, is that whether you believe that Oliver’s actions were merely prompted by ordinary human failing of a man buckling under the stress and strain of his life situation or whether you fancy some other explanation, his high profile case has provided racing with an opportunity to address very serious concerns both in terms of participant indiscretion and authority response.

Hopefully some good will come out of an unfortunate situation!

More articles