JOCKEY’S DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1920, Page 3

JOCKEY’S DISPUTE

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 13,

Mr Sheath, Seeertary of the Jockeys’ Association, in an official statement in reply to Sir George Clifford’s for not recognising the Association, says that it was news to him that 90 jockeys had resigned from the Association. The only person under the rules of the Association who could receive resignations was himself, and he had not received anywhere near that number. He had not had an opportunity of perusing the list in the hands of Sir George Clifford, but the fact that Sir George Clifford produced it, proved conclusively that the owners and trainers wore a, party to the resignations and confirmed the statements of individual jockeys that they had been threatened with the severest punishment it was pos sible to inflict, namely the refusal of owners to allow them to ride their horses,. No jockey, Mr Sheath emphatically stated, had resigned of his own free will. Many who resigned had since rejoined, stating that they would risk punishment. The delegates at the Conference represented 226 jockeys, hut oven if the Association had only 15 members, the law said clearly the other party must meet them and discuss the dispute. If the owners and trainers refuse to discuss the dispute the onus was on them for defying the law. All this was nut before the owners and trainers’ delegates at the conference; but Mr Sheath added that Sir George Clifford had said distinctively in his re. ply that he would not recognise the Association as at present constituted, and that ho would not recognise or con. fer with any Association of jockeys. REPLY TO MR SHEATH. CHRISTCHURCH, Jan 14 Replying to the statement of the Secretary of the Jockeys Association, Sir George Clifford states that fully ninety jockeys informed him that they have re. signed from the Association. He says be knows of no individual jockeys threatened with severe or any punishment In this connection he had never said, as stated bv Mr Sheath, that lie would not recognise or confer with any association of jockeys. In fact, be has already so conferred, but an Association so constituted as the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association, and adopting its arbitrary. methods ,can, hi his opinion, only he injurious t« all concerned.