THE SUNSHINE COAST NEWSPAPER COLUMN - IS THIS A CASE OF THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG?

By Graham Potter | Sunday, October 6, 2013

Graham Potter writes a weekly column for the Sunshine Coast daily. Due to demand from those having trouble accessing the paper these columns are now also published on HRO courtesy of the Sunshine Coast daily

Is the tail wagging the dog with regard to racing’s disciplinary structure?

Many were unhappy last week when Damian Oliver sought leave to start a suspension immediately after his Friday night indiscretion at Moonee Valley in spite having already committed to rides throughout the weekend.

Oliver not only wanted his suspension to start early, but he also wanted it to end early, with an appeal against the severity of his penalty being lodged in the hope of getting it reduced by a couple of days to allow him to ride at the lucrative carnival meeting yesterday.

Oliver got the nod on the early start to his suspension.
The rules, such as they are in Victoria, allowed Oliver to follow that route, providing he got permission … a release if you like … from his pending commitments from each of the individual sets of connections involved.

How that option can be written into a rule is beyond me.

I mean, seriously, here you are, the owner of a runner at the weekend who is in with a chance, has been primed for the run, with Damian Oliver up … and the rider asks you to let him off so that he can start his suspension earlier as that would suit him better.

How is that even a question? Do connections really have a choice?

The jockey is telling you he doesn’t want to ride your horse (which is not any real motivation to keep him on) and if you reject his ‘request’ you run the risk of souring relations with a jockey who skills you would probably like to use in future. It’s a no-win situation.

No surprise that connections retreated from this situation. Oliver got his permission.

While connections, theoretically at least, had a say, punters had no say in the matter at all.

If they punted one of those horses before Oliver jumped off, they didn’t get the horse / rider combination they had originally bet on and so their bet could be seen to be compromised … and that point was rightly argued with some vehemence by a certain high profile racing identity.

Oliver did lose his appeal against the severity of the sentence.

Had the decision gone the other way, even if proved justified, there would undoubtedly have been even more discontent.

Oliver has only recently returned to race riding following ten months on the sideline courtesy of his now infamous disqualification after he was found guilty of placing a bet on a horse (not one that he was riding).

It will be remembered that the perception surrounding the delay in setting that ten month penalty and then the way it seemingly then fitted into a neat package in-between major carnivals did racing no favours … and nobody wanted a further example which could re-ignite that conversation.

They tell me Oliver, and others, are merely doing what the rules allow them to do.

Then some rules need to be changed.

If a rider transgresses the rules he or she faces sanction. Any guilty finding should hand the rider a definitive penalty instead of dealing them a hand of cards and asking them if they want to stick or twist.

It is meant to be a punishment afterall … and the rules need to be redefined to ensure that, arguably unlike the events of last weekend, the correct person is punished.

More articles