FROM THE SHERIFF'S DESK - THE NEED FOR A TIGHTER SYSTEM TO HANDLE JOCKEY'S SUSPENSION DATES

By John Schreck | Thursday, August 4, 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.

There has been some talk in the last week about jockeys ‘playing the system’ when it comes to when they take their suspension.

The more prudent question is whether the system as it stands now is there to be played and whether a more strict structure should be put in place in this regard.

The way this deferment option came about had its origin years and years ago in Sydney. It was partly my lack of common sense that created problems on Doncaster day.

We suspended Brent Thompson ... and of course that threw his riding engagements for Easter Monday into dreadful confusion.

In those days he was the stable rider for Colin Hayes and it was stupid of us to do that at the time. We should have found a reason to adjourn the inquiry until after racing on Monday.

It was subsequent to that the people who make the rules allowed a forty-eight hour deferment on suspensions to do away with those sorts of problems.

Since then, they have pushed that forty-eight hour deferment out to nine days.

In essence the change to nine days is designed to alleviate appeals but it is just too long a period of time. Forty-eight hours is a more than adequate option.

It is wrong that riders can transgress the rules, be suspended and then manipulate the dates of their suspension to their own benefit while perhaps compromising the position and opportunities of those who have conformed with the rules ... in terms of what plum rides or stable opportunities might be available over that period of time.

The bottom line is that the idea of a penalty being imposed is to try and deter that person from re-offending in the future while it is also meant to deter other from offending.

The way the system is these days it doesn’t achieve either of those objectives because there it provides too comfortable an arrangement for the riders in most circumstances.

In my time the riders really had no say in the allocation of their suspension dates. They used to put forward reasons why they wanted the forty-eight hour deferment and then the stewards would make the decision as to when the penalty was to commence.

It was never put to them, when do you want to start your suspension?

It was handled in an entirely different way.

I accept change but we are talking about a disciplinary issue here and I really can’t see where it is fair for riders to pick and choose when they take their penalty. That is simply not fair to those who have not broken the rules.

For a jockey, the simplest way to make sure you keep a ride on a boom mount next week is to not breach a careless riding rule this week.

It’s not that complicated.

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

Another interesting topic this week was a high profile case in which a top rider won his appeal against a one month suspension.

Some have suggested that, never mind being on the same page, the stewards and the appeals board seemingly are not even reading from the same book.

Each individual will have their own view on that.

I don’t know enough about the details of the particular case in question to comment on that particular outcome but, in general terms, the fact is that Rule 135b which states ... ‘the rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure his horse is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the field’ ... was put into the rule book to penalise those who rode a race which clearly and adversely compromised a horse’s finishing position.

The rule was not designed to penalise a rider who made an error of judgement. Riders make errors of judgement every day ... as we all do ... and it was never, never designed for that.

It was designed to deal with a ride which was completely inexplicable. If you can argue that the ride from go to whoa was an inexplicable one then a penalty has to be imposed.

On the other hand, if at a particular stage of the running he goes left instead of right and runs into a dead-end, the jockey might very well have taken that action by design, but it would be very hard to establish that.

Contrary to some opinion, Rule 135b is not vague at all. I vehemently disagree with it being called vague. It is clear and precise and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

If stewards properly particularise the ride it becomes very simple to understand if the rule has been breached or not.

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

In conclusion, just a small word of warning for racing administrators to look at the wider picture.

Racing is finding out the hard way that is does not exist in isolation to the rest of the world and it therefore it would do well to pay attention to what is going on in other sectors of life which could have an impact on the industry moving forward.

Take the current state of federal politics for example.

Malcolm Turnbull could well end up doing a deal with independents Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon who, along with Tim Costello, are leading the charge for poker machine reform.

It seems to me it is almost a world certainly that they will come to some sort of an arrangement on the poker machines.

If that reform happens something could easily flow on to gambling generally ... across the wagering world ... so I think everybody in racing needs to be aware and prepared for that.

Racing needs to look after its future.

To do that, it has to be very aware of everything that is going on around it so that it does not get taken by surprise.