Making Punishment Fit the Crime

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 402, 10 July 1928, Page 11

Making Punishment Fit the Crime

DISCIPLINE IN TROTTING OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY (Special to THE SUN) WELLINGTON, To-day. Some remarks on punishment for misdemeanours on the part of horsemen and owners were made by the president of the Trotting Conference, Mr. H. F. Nicoll, to-day. “I would like to emphasise to all judicial committees the necessity to make the punishment fit the crime,” said Mr. Nicoll in his address. “An owner is responsible for the actions of his horsemen, and must suffer where there is a breach of the rules, but clubs should guard against inflicting a greater penalty on the owners than on the horsemen (the actual offenders) who generally escape with a fine, which very often the owner pays—though, ir> the best interests of the sport, he should never do so—thus adding to what he had already suffered in the loss of the stake, if the position of the horse has been reversed from first to another place. The real offender thus is not sufficiently punished, so offering a premium to misbehaviour. I noticed in a recent case, where a winning horse was placed second for interference, the horseman was only fined by the club £25, although they stated that in their opinion the interference was wilful. The punishment for wilful interference should in almost every instance be disqualification for a term. It is one of the most serious breaches of the rules, and one that must be put down with a firm hand.

“An alteration in the rules governing ‘keeping position’ in a race is suggested by your executive to-day, whereby the word ‘unlawfully’ would be struck out in Rule 286, clause (b). This is with the view that clubs should recognise that interference during the progress of a race, whether wilful or otherwise, should be dealt with. I have emphasised this point on previous occasions; careless or incompetent driving should be checked quite equally with wilful misbehaviour, and the offending party dealt with in a manner which will check any recurrence of the lapse. Appeal Cases

“In one of the two cases which the conference appeal judges were called upon to decide, a well-known horseman had been called before the Licensing Committee to show cause why both his trainer’s and horseman’s licences should not be cancelled. After reviewing his record, the committee recommended that he should b£ suspended from riding and driving for two months, and this punishment was endorsed by the association. In the indictment three offences were mentioned, and as he had been found not guilty of one of these, a second was acknowledged to be trivial, and for the third a caution only had been incurred, the appeal judges found for the appellant. “I wish to make it clear, however, that the decision of the appeal judges in this case in no manner weakens the authority or the power of the association. They have full power at all times to approve, vary or reverse tlis decision of the stewards of the club, and may increase or lessen the penalties inflicted by clubs, and also have the power to deal with trainers’ and horsemen’s licences according to the facts they may have before them. In the case under review the association lost because their indictment was faulty, and not for any lack of power under the rules to deal with licences. “In the second appeal to the conference. the Needles-John Dee case, the club found that the driver of Needles had interfered with John Dee by improper use of the whip; the club reversed the position of the horses and fined the driver of Needles CIO. The association altered the positions allotted by the club and placed the horses as they originally finished, viz.. Needles I. John Dee 2. The owner of the latter appealed against the decision, but judgment was given in favour of the association.