TURF SENSATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 380, 14 June 1928, Page 13

TURF SENSATION

I Continued From Page l.>

ROTORUA FRAME-UP

—j. otacial report ot the finding of miliciul committee of the Rotorua it* } u Club on the riding of certain oin the high-weight events is as

*°2rhi« committee is called upon to deli ilie charges against W. Rennie, J. C Cnrmont, R. K. Thomson, *1 r’itmer and O. Holland, of corrupt tire under Rule 32, Section 1. Part g*p„i es of Racing, in that they were to a conspiracy that Dress i>art }a should win the Pohutu HigbHandicap at the Rotorua meet » on February 11 last, and against “me Jockeys, with the exception Urtiland and Gilmer, that they were itv of a simlar corrupt practice ir. ncct of the Tarawera I-ligh-weight mfndicap at Rotorua on February 13 ; n that they were a party to a .Piracy that Rady Cintra should win c °° in the first race, besides the “r ke , 8 charted. R. Syrno rode Wilthire and Maguire Lady Spalpeen, and "“gjjrect evidence against the jockeys ocerned is mainly the evidence of 2L e and Maguire. Evidence was 'iso taker, from Wiggins, McGregor, Martin. Hines and Shaw, while Statements were made by the jockeys -cerned. wf o also called Mr. R. Fanon to give evidence on their behalf. They also handed in a paper report on ,h« races in question. We deal first vith the charge in respect of the pohutu High - weight Handicap. “There is considerable discrepancy between all the parties as to the various positions of the horses during the —ce. This is not unreasonable, as statements were taken from the parses concerned some time after the tace, and through force ot cireumjtances the evidence in support of the charges was only commenced on Friday, June 1. After hearing Syme and Maguire's statement we are satisfied that they are truthful witnesses, who -are their evidence honestly. It is clear that both have erred in their placing ot home of the horses at certain periods of the race, but this, in our opinion, joes not affect their honesty as witnesses. We do not propose to go

through the evidence in detail, but think it sufficient to say that the evidence establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that there was deliberate interference by Rennie and Mcßae with other horses during the race to assist Dress Circle to win the race in question. Wo accept Maguire's statement that there was an attempt at interference with him by Rennie coming into the straight. We also accept the evidence of Syme in respect of tho conversation between Gilmer and himself, subsequent to the race, in which Gilmer admitted pulling his horse in the race in question, to allow Dress Circle to win. but in our opinion this statement of Gilmer’s is not evidence against the other jockeys whom Gilmer states! were associated with him in the conspiracy.

“Considerable evidence was called to establish a general knowledge of the jockeys that the race was, in sporting parlance, a 'ready.'’ Such knowledge invariably arose from rumour and hearsay evidence, and we disregard it. i remains, therefore, to consider what evidence, if any, there is against Thomson and Holland in connection with ■his rate. Thomson rode the winner, Dress Circle, and there was strong evidence that Rennie called out to Thomson, as Thomson took advantage "fan opening which had been left by r.ennie for this purpose, 'Go for your ■lie, Rangi.’ Thomson denies that he heard this. We were not Impressed vith the mrnner in which Thomson e his ev.dence, but have corne to ho conclusion that the evidence is houmcient to convict Thomson. So .Iso with regard to Holland. There is » direct evidence to implicate him. he bump which his horse got early in have been accidental, and S „ er h T ': was >ast for the rest of n( ‘ er these circumstances 3 F° " ot think the statement by McHolland was a party to a DiSa’ at the previous Takarj^ns~''hile relevant and imlthA. fl ‘. Clent to im Phcate Holland race in question. Hi-h“ 'Ll 51 . 1 " ow "dth the Tarawera Jj Handicap on the second ircum.n. Stllrt Wlth two outstanding W era™ First 14 is admitted *bo ey - including Mcßae, ™™t L * dy Clntra > that on its v tlrst day ' Ladv cintra had so the second da .v so T l a e J ° cke y s termed those hr ‘mis^ d Minina on the second wag sec °nd circumstance ■To hl,e Lad y Cintra only had tie ar , out . 04 a tota l <>« 3,113 on P°cr ra t ce da on 1I fh WhlCh 'U ran such a siriiar on .H l ® second day, in a horses it e ,' Ptactically the same iJM il <am ed SBB tickets out of mttaot, „^ Se J ,re material and relevcot^erinc h ts annot k* disregarded. .1 uueti S the fanning of the race *cS ." 0 ; v ' 14 is obvious that at race Udv ' 1 ™ ? early fitase of the dter which C .’, ntra received a check, it is also > U was never prominent, returned 441a4 when the horse 'SV'Ri'h the rider of Lady and immoa” . a ver y bad temper, '»mplainld‘m Upon dismounting he ’i>« Svmf .Q the stipendiary steward "termed ri d®r of AViltshire. had the hor«A>o hlm deliberately as thin s „om T ,^ ere , "earing the straight, -'lfßas’s „„ , so °d winning chance.’ true complaint was obviousiv un•ho 5.“ ” as apparent to those of us ‘hptndiarv It rac J e ’ as weU as the a question S l * ard , that at the place ■: 3,” s yme was well in front Udy c . *5 several lengths ahead of ■iiary trAn^ l 'j an d this fact the stipends n^U £rd Pointed out to Mcßae. sTil 118 * ourralves why Mcßae oiplaint t? S i fd * ' vhy be made a false made it ■ interference, and why he "»» aJf S St Syn ? e ’ ll temnteqi * . so satisfied that Rennie 5 S the ro«° I . nter^er © with Syme durThnww. eln Question. It is clear o- flf w ho rode Captain Cobdurinr badly, and was last Ce l>t \fr „ ole of the journey. We horse \ • Hannon s statement that ° a P®ble not soun d, and was indoing: any better than it > iK nn"L:„l hO!iC °i rcumstances wi t K . evi dence to connect Thomfind con spiracy. We thereJ, * 411 th © Pohutu Higrhon February 11. iotenti ancl Gilnier rode with * Win ™ of assisting Dress Circle in the Tarawera a”*! 1 Handicap on February 13. were P art >' to a shr, il at Mcß ae’s horse, Lady win<ct©rv n U , St coc nment on the unsatis--b many , “f e °f tiie evidence given ***»ledir., jockeys, who had some '"'‘•hiuax 4 belief that there was an v,A *P r Htthy Cintra. to win ■•Sac ut * ,n giving their evidence, **iui, J ' ,a PossiUe to say how they hittoir.- “ ithowledge save through •‘tuid E Lr „„ 0 ’ f° r example, Wiggins r Sess before the nice that Si® ,i’'"? ent existed and that Ul * i ir, l° U d therefore ’get out at **4esiy ui .-': 8 quickl y as possible and A.,,,, avoid trouble.’ We feel state also that we are lir. J' E " lL h tile evidence given by *Wr-i. L°omb. the owner of Lady «h,n I LQomb stated that Mca - Conrh.a ending over the mare at s* of the race, said that * ki3 ' ot con L ™ Uld nijt raise a gallop.’ course, i s i n complete contra-

diction to Mcßae’s statement that he had been interfered with by Syme and ‘a good winning chance’ thereby spoiled. Moreover, it is absurd to expect us to believe that a jockey and head’ boy, in the confidence of his trainer as Mcßae was, would advise Loomb hat the mare could not raise a gallop, and forthwith go to the stipendiary steward in a towering rage and complain hat a good winning chance had been interfered with. We repeat that, in our opinion, Mr. Loomb’s evidence was unsatisfactory, unconvincing, and extremel> difficult to accept. As a considerable time elapseda fter the race before Mr. Loomb's statement was taken, and as Mr. Loomb suffers to some extent from deafness, we propose only to record the impression left upon us by the evidence given by Mr. Loomb. We disqualify Rennie and Gilmer for a period of 12 months from this date (June 11), for a corrupt practice under rule 33, section 1, part Is, Rules of keing. We disqualify Mcßae under the same rule foi a peiiod ot six months from this date. We find the evidence insufficient to convict Thomson and Holland, but draw the attention of the District Committee to the statement made by Mcßae as to Holland’s malpractice at the previous Takapuna meeting. "Carmont did not appear to answer the charges agains him owing to his having suffered injury on the previous drv It was still be necessary to deal with the charges against him. and we have accordingly omitted reference to Carmont in this judgment.