FROM THE SHERIFF'S DESK: WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

By John Schreck | Thursday, August 11, 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.

Given what transpired at the high profile cobalt case hearings this week I have been asked to give my view on the role that anecdotal evidence can play in these sorts of proceedings.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I have never felt it appropriate for people to make any judgemental comments on any case that is still in progress in front of a tribunal ... and I certainly won’t be doing that here.

Therefore my views of anecdotal evidence are put forward in general terms only without any reference at all to any particular issue.

In the first instance it is very important to understand that anecdotal evidence is evidence that is based on personal accounts (anecdotes) rather than facts or research and therefore it is not necessarily true or reliable.

That doesn’t mean it is not true or will not prove reliable but, at the time of being put into evidence ... if it is anecdotal ... it has yet to sustain the burden of proof. It could be false.

A tribunal will take whatever action they might feel is necessary acting upon the evidence ... anecdotal or otherwise ... that has been submitted.

It is entirely up to the tribunal as to what weight they will give to anecdotal evidence and that finding will be based on a variety of important and inter-related factors,

Because of it being unsubstantiated facts, evidence raised in this way can be a dangerous beast ... not for the tribunal, who will follow accepted procedure, but for those, possibly such as some media outlets, who will run with the ‘story’ raised in anecdotal evidence arguably without due regard for the profile they are creating for unsubstantiated claims.

If anecdotal evidence points a finger at any person or group of people or any set of procedures or systems, until the veracity, or otherwise, of that claim, suggestion, allegation ... whatever you want to call it ... is established the whole episode could be unfair to those parties referred to who currently not associated with any wrongdoing.

This can be particularly true when a collective group is named when only a few individuals in the group are alleged wrongdoers. Until those individual details are established, the reputation of the whole group is at risk. That is clearly unfair.

Anecdotal evidence raised in any case, of course, is of interest to all of the participants in the area of life covered by any particular case, but where that evidence leads and to what outcome is ultimately in the hands of the tribunal who are best placed to weigh up all evidence.

So, in conclusion, anecdotal evidence can be of great value or of no value at all. Because of that great divide, I believe it is best to allow events to take their course in front of those best credentialed to adjudicate such matters and for them then to make their decision.

It could go either way of course but, for those on the periphery in these situations, it might be wisest to not get too involved in anecdotal evidence debate and refrain from spreading what might amount to little more than hearsay. Second hand, third hand opinions are not necessarily a great help in establishing a certain truth.

It could be embarrassing if you backed the wrong horse.

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

The subject of form reversal continues to be a hobby horse for some people.

It is winter and I think it has been established over a long period of time that the winter months, with its heavy tracks and lower class of horses, generally speaking, is a combination which lends itself to some upset results.

Any reasonable punter will understand that.

I think that is simply part of racing with that unpredictability being one of the sport’s major drawcards.

Having said that, for thirty years I have been advocating greater consideration for the use of synthetic tracks.
In recent times one of the major daily newspapers in Sydney has been running a similar view.

You need to keep race meetings running on schedule, particularly these days, to secure the necessary revenue for the sport.

Whatever else anybody might think about them, synthetic tracks open up that option by curtailing the loss of meetings, making them an invaluable asset to the sport.