FROM THE SHERIFF'S DESK - A GAME CHANGING DECISION

By John Schreck | Wednesday, March 16, 2016

John Schreck, a former Chief Steward in both Sydney and Hong Kong, has seen both the colourful and the dark sides of racing. His wealth of experience and his deep knowledge of racing matters across the board is unquestioned and the reputation he built as a racing ‘lawman’ remains firmly entrenched in racing’s history. Shreck’s personal blog, ‘From the Sheriff’s Desk', appears exclusively on HRO.

Whatever then rights and wrongs of the protest decision at the Sunshine Coast last Saturday the fact that it was the first successful protest against the excessive use of the whip is likely to have repercussions.

I do think it is a game-changer in the sense that I can see jockeys wanting to have a look at films and firing in protests more often than they did before Saturday’s outcome. They might be thinking now that we might just get this.

Race riders will look upon it as a game-changer. I’m sure of that.

It was obviously a very interesting decision and a real precedent has been set.

I have argued against the right to protest under the new whip rule since its inception and I will always argue against it.

For things like breaches of the whip rule penalties for such breaches should be visited upon those that breach such rules ... that is the rider ... and not upon innocent trainers, owners and punters who are in the grandstand and who have done nothing wrong.

It is entirely different with interference rules where, not always but in some cases, the person who has initiated the interference is riding a horse that they are using as a vehicle to create the interference.

The rationale behind upholding protests in relation to interference is simply that. That a vehicle, that is the horse, has been used to deprive another horse the chance of winning the race.

By upholding the protest you right that wrong!

But as far as the whip rule is concerned, I’ve been around horses a long time and I wouldn’t be able to measure whether or not a horse’s performance was improved or detracted from because of the use of the whip.

Some might improve under the whip but it is also a well-known fact that some horses resent the whip and go slower.

I simply would not be able to measure that whereas with interference you can physically, tangibly see the ground that a horse has lost. That definitely can be measured and stewards can explain their reasons quite succinctly for upholding or dismissing protests.

I can’t comment on the particular case at the Sunshine Coast and I certainly won’t criticise the decision. I wasn’t there. I wasn’t party to the evidence.

My criticism is with the aspect of the rule which gives you the right to protest for excessive use of the whip.

As I’ve said before, it ought not to be there!

********************************************************************************************************

The Sunshine Coast provided just one of two interesting protests on the weekend ... the other one being Melbourne in the Australian Cup where Preferment, who finished second to Awesome Rock, won on protest.

Protests are always very emotive issues. They have always been and will always be because most people tend to talk through their pocket.

The protest in Melbourne though, I would have thought was a very simple one for officials.

It was a world certainty to be upheld.

********************************************************************************************************

Racegoers tend to take these sort of decisions without too much protest of their own these days.

There was a time where the races were packed with people and the crowds were far more volatile than are today.

I well remember the day when we started races with a flag and Plus Vite won the Missile Stakes. Plus Vite was ridden by Peter Miers and was trained by Bob Hoysted who was the trainer of Manikato.

It was a 200-1 shot and there was a very volatile demonstration due to the fact that we had a flag start and a $200 chance got home, to the point that they were unable to make the presentation in the mounting yard.

They had to do it up in the committee room where it was safe to do so.

And there are of course many other examples of crowd ‘protest’ behaviour.

So, yes, punters used to vent their displeasure much more in the old days but then, of course, there were so many more people at the races back then.

Demonstrations were very much part of the racing scene in times gone by.

It is very different these days. Nowadays they just go off and vent on social media.

I would prefer to have demonstrations at the track than have it flying through space on social media where it stays forever.

The sad part there is it never goes away whereas in the demonstration days they’d shout and throw their race books and things ... and then go away and try and back the next winner.

*******************************************************************************************************

In closing, while it is obviously not a racing matter, just a brief comment on the recent Maria Sharipova situation, where she tested positive for a recently banned medication.

Certainly she is going to be penalised, but a lot of people in the press have been giving her four years already.

Now, I’m not siding with Sharipova or supporting her at all, although I must say she has handled herself well since getting into trouble for which she deserves some credit.

She should have been aware that it the medication had become prohibited and clearly she will be penalised ... but it would be good when cases like this crop up if people involved are allowed the presumption of some sort of innocence until proven guilty with the same care being undertaken with regard comments made about penalties before they have actually been decided.

And it would be good if that happened in all walks of life.