Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

OWNERS’ RISK

MUST BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENFORCE TURF CONTROL NEW PHASES OF SONGIFT CASE The Songift case, involving the disqualification of J. Munro, has occasioned widespread comment in Australian racing circles. Many phases have been discussed, and questions have been asked about certain action of the stewards. One of these is the disqualification of the horse and the owner’s responsibility. Another is the horse’s previous form. Still another is the reason for appeals not being heard. These matters are dealt with below by a Sydney writer. A point about the Songift and J. Munro disqualification that has struck some keen dissectors of the case is that the horse was put out for 12 months, though the owner’s explanation was accepted. HORSE SENSE It means that the horse cannot run to prove or disprove estimates of his form were astray or not. The last disqualification of a jockey of note, W. Johnstone, was based on the form of a horse, Myrangle King, who, subsequently starting, proved that he was so unmanageable that the refusal of his entry was recommended and adopted. And on an appeal on those grounds, Johnstone got off. But unless an appeal on behalf of the owner of Songift is successful, and the ban lifted off the horse, he cannot run to prove by subsequent form whether he could have won Saturday’s race or not. FORM COMPARISONS Anyhow, comparisons of form, as racegoers know to their cost, are not thoroughly reliable. And another point about this phase of the case is the necessity of owners being held responsible for control of their horses. Obviously, a horse cannot be given into the custody of some second party without the owner being held responsible, in the same way that an employer is held responsible for the shortcomings of an employee who drives a motortruck and causes accident to some third party. If such responsibilities could be shirked, it would knock the bottom out of all turf control. THE LOOPHOLE An o\v ner could hand over a horse, the agent could do as he chose, and’ when the stewards sought explanation, the owner declaring that he had given no authority to do such a crooked thing, would be scot free of any charge. These statements are made without prejudice to the Songift case. But it is obvious that the stewards have no alternative but to hold an owner responsible for his horse’s running unless a trusted employee, such as a trainer, grossly betrayed that trust. It frequently happens that the owner

of a horse might be far distant from the scene where the race is run.

In this instance, the owner of Songift was at Parkes.

In another case recently, the owner was five days’ journey away in Kew Zealand. But the stewards had to make the owner responsible until he proved otherwise. And if such responsibility is not fulfilled, the stewards have no alternative but to punish. WHY APPEALS WAIT Appeals on behalf of the owner (for his disqualified horse), the trainer, and J. Leech, were lodged, the day of the disqualification. J. Munro lodged his appeal the next day. The committee sat a few days later, but the appeals were not heard. This was explained, however, by the fact that evidence in connection with the case was not ready. Probably the matter could have been rushed through, but that would not have been to the advantage of the parties. The volume of evidence taken in connection with the case is very considerable. A shorthand note of everything said at’ such inquiries is taken, and it is then typed ready for reference during the subsequent sittings of the case for the appeal. MATURE CONSIDERATION This typed evidence is forwarded to every member of the A.J.C. committee when an appeal is coming on. He receives his copy as soon as it is available, perhaps a week or more before the appeal jeomes on. Thus the committeeman is thoroughly acquainted with the facts of the case when it comes up for appeal, having had the opportunity of digesting all that the stewards have extracted from their witnesses. The preparation of such a volume of evidence takes time. And although it means that the parties concerned are under the ban for longer than might really be the case if haste were observed, it must be better in the long run that the committeemen should know the full facts of the case. SONGI FT'S FORM Songift’s recent performances make him out to be no champion, even in the country, where he raced prior to this visit to the city. At his seven starts prior to the third at Canterbury that brought about the trouble he won three times, was second three times, and at Rosehill was unplaced.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19270709.2.59

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
793

OWNERS’ RISK Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 6

OWNERS’ RISK Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 92, 9 July 1927, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert