SPORTING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 329, 16 June 1911, Page 7

SPORTING.

I TILE BARLOW DISQUALIFICATION. I lIAWERA STEWARDS' DECISION | REVERSED. ' The Taranaki Metropolitan Committee, after a hearing extonding over two evenings, yesterday gave the following decision in the appeal of Robert Barlow, trainer and jockey, against the finding of the Egniont Racing Club, whose stewards imposed on him a dis--1 qualification for twelve months for alleged "pulling" of the horse Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap at the Egniont winter meeting:— Barlow is a licensed trainer and jockey and rode Master Sylvia—trained by him —in the Railway Handicap at the Egniont, Racing Club's meeting in a liela of about ten. He ran second to Sandy Paul, and immediately after being wcighed-in .was asked to attend at the stewards' room. He did so, and found six stewards there-Messrs. Nolan , (chairman), Tonks, Good, Gray, Adarn(son and Quin. Mr. Gray, who lias given evidence before the committee, lias told ns what took place. ''When Barlow entered the room he was told that he was required to explain his riding in the' race. That is | all he was asked. The minutes as contained in my club's 'Notes of EviI dence' submitted gives a fair idea of | the evidence given. After Mr. Nolan asked Barlow if he had anything further to say lie was told to leave the room, and did not hear and had no opportunity of hearing any evidence against him. Barlow was told of no charge brought against him. There were five stewards present. The first advice to your committee naming only four was incorrect. There was a difference of opinion as to the disqualification: Good, Gray and Adamson were in favor of disqualification, Nolan and Tonks were against the decision. Mr. ' Quin was not present when the decision was arrived at. He is a'steward. The I reason for his presence was owing to I his being posted down the straight to watch the running. He gave his opinion to the meeting before the dicision was arrived at, but not in the presence of Barlow. No one else made any statement to the stewards. I saw the horse pulled about 210 yards from the , post when Sandy Paul was just about ! to pass him. I saw him pull the horse I by the reins to cheek his speed. He did not appear to have been whipping his horse. I saw him raise his whip [ an(l bring it down, but cannot tell whether he struck the horse or not. \ I could not tell whether he hit his boot! or his horse. The horse did not go ' at the same speed after. The other horse forged ahead about three-quarters of a length and kept that lead. He stopped appearing to whip after one« lifting of the wnip and bringing it down. The lifting and bringing down of the whip appeared just bofore the pull. I made a statement to the stewards that I was thoroughly satisfied that lie pulled the horse, but gave no particulars. 1 was satisfied' by seeing what I have just told you. Adamson also made a statement* to the stewards as te what he had seen, and was of the j same opinion as myself. Mr. A. Good, I who was at the bend, stated, I when at the bend, that Jiavlow j was in front and the horse was i going well, but in his position could not sec what happened afterwards. Nolan j and Tonks were in doubt as to whether there was an intentional pull, and gave him the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Good, who saw nothing of the pull, | voted for the disqualification owing to , myself and Adamson being so confident as to the pull. There was no evidence that I know of to show that the pull was with any fraudulent or corrupt intention." The minutes of evidence supplied by the stewards, and above referred to bv Mr. Gray, are as follows: Present: Messrs. Nolan (in the 'chair), Gray, Adamson, Good, and Tonks. R. Barlow, the rider, said: 1 tried to make every post a winning post. I put the whip on him in the straight, but he did not respond to it. He improved his position when I took tile whip oil' him. I could not beat Sandy Paul on to-day's running, and bad everything in my favor by hav-! ~ing inside running and getting well I away. I By ill". Adamson: Down near the [ gate, about one furlong from home, | I drew my whip. i By Mr. Gray: I instructed Smith (owner) to back the horse. By Mr. Nolan: Mr. Smith backed the horse for me to the amount of £lO. Adamson—Gray: "That Barlow be disqualified for life for pulling Master Sylvia in the Railway Handicap."—Withdrawn. Tonks—Nolan: "That the stewards i are not satisfied with the riding «i t Master Sylvia, and that Barlow be censured."—Lost. i Good—Adamson: "That Barlow be disqualified for twelve months for pulling Master Sylvia in the Kailway Handicap."—Carried. After the next race Barlow was called in, and the following is his account of what took place: Mr. Nolan told me I was disqualified for twelve months. I asked if I could bring some witnesses. He said, "No, it is not a case of bringing witnesses or evidence. As 'a matter of fact, if you bring ,£3O worth of totalisator tickets it would make no difference." I asked if they would give me a rehearing. Mr. Nolan said "No." I asked if I could appeal against the decision. Mr. Nolan said "No." I said, "Do you gentlemen say I am disqualified for twelve months for the way I rode Master Sylvia?" Mr. Nolan hesitated a little, and then said, "That's the decision of the stewards." No one gave evidence for or against me in my presence except myself." The meeting of stewards was intended to be a meeting of the Judicial Committee, but it seems doubtful whether these stewards were a Judicial Committee, as their election took place on February 4 prior to a race meeting held on February 0, and there was nothing in the resolution appointing them to show that they were intended to act at morb than one meeting, whilst Rule ]. Part V., at page 21 of the Rules of Racing, contemplates an election of a Judicial Committee prior to a race meeting to act for that particular meeting. But it is not necessary to decide this point, as five stewards were present and look part in the decision, and this number constitutes a quorum (Rule 2, Part TV., at page 18). In accordance with Rule 8, Part XXXI. (at, page 70), the disqualification took effect at once, and Barlow was disqualified for riding at the meeting and for fourteen days afterwards. Barlow, before the particulars were forwarded by the stewards, lodged an appeal with the Metropolitan Committee, accompanied by the necessary deposit. Rule S of Part XXXT. clearly provides tli.it every decision of the stewards of | the club is subject to approval by the I Metropolitan Committee, and to appear lw (he person aggrieved, and that the Metropolitan Committee shall, "in the case of an appeal, hear any represents- j 'live of the stewards or committee and j

the appellant, and any evidence wheih may be submitted for its consideration." Rule 9 equally clearly applies to every decision of the stewards, and empowers the Metropolitan Committee to approve the decision "in whole or in part, or vary or reverse tft« same* and to "increase or diminish any disqualification or fine thereby imposed." Rule 7 1 present great difficulty. It docs not , state that the decision of the stewards I "as to any question of fact" shall be [ conclusive; but merely that the "finding" 9hall 'be conclusive. The meaning of the two wprds "decision" and "finding" are not by any means the same. "Finding" applies to some particular fact ascertained in order to enable a "decision" to be arrived at, and not the decision itself. The rule proceeds to indicate ! what is a "question of fact," 'but does I not do this with sufficient certainty. It states that' "these words "shall be construed literally, e.g., short weight, i a cross, or an obvious pull, would be | questions of fact, whilst, on the other ) hand, intentionally inconsistent running, i not marked by obvious pulling, would ; be a matter of opinion, and any objection or charge on such a ground would require confirmation and corroboration." It would appear as if it were intended that only that which is obvious to the eye should be left to the uncontrolled decision of the stewards present who saw the particular incident, and that whatever could not be determined with certainty by eyesight alone should be decided upon evidence in the usual manner. The only power which the stewards possess of disqualifying a person under such cir- : cumstances would appear to be that (conferred by Rule 1 (n), Part XXXIII., j at page 89, which is a power exercisable lif he be "guilty of any corrupt or ! fraudulent practice." The instances given in Rule 7 above—"short weight, I a cross, or an obvious pull"—do not necessarily involve a "corrupt or fraudulent intent." Clearly "short weight" may be caused by accident or by design | of some person other than the jockey, ( and without his connivance; "a cross" may be accidental and not affect the result of the race, whilst a "pull" is capable of different interpretations, and this is recognised bv qualifying the word by the prefix "obvious." In its widest sense "to pull" would mean —"to hold back, and so prevent from winning," but the insertion of "obvious"' would seem to show that this is not to be taken as the meaning. In this particular case, unfortunately, the usual and proper steps were not taken by the stewards in conducting their investigation. Barlow was not made acquainted with the charge, nor was he allowed to hear the statement made by or before the stewards as to his conduct in the race, or to call evidence in his defence. I The questions asked him. by the stewards do not seem to have been specially I directed to the particular incident; j which a majority subsequently held to I be "an obvious pull," and he does not | seem therefore to have had any opportunity of explaining his action in that particular. Of the five stewards, one ] admittedly was not in a position to sec what took place, and the other four were equally divided in opinion. If the decision of the stewards were to be held conclusive in all respects, that Barlow had been guilty of "pulling" his mount with corrupt intention, it, would inflict very great hardship in view of his havI ing had no sufficient opportunity of ( defending himself, and of tile stewards . having been so equally divided. The ! -Metropolitan Committee, has had the advantage of a lengthy investigation, and of the evidence of' Mr. Gray, Barlow (who was open to examination by Mr. Cray as well as by tho members of the committee) and many other persons, and is satisfied with the explanation which has been given by Barlow, and, even if bound by the finding of fact, the particular fact that in the straight Barlow did not ride his horse in such a nitmner as a good -horseman would and should have done, is of opinion that he is not guilty of any corrupt or fraudulent practice. Rule 0 of Part XXVI., (at page 07) provides that "jockeys shall ride (heir horses out to the end of the race if they have a reasonable chance of winning," but the committee is satisfied by the evidence that after Sandy Paul lmd passed Master Sylvia Barlow had not a reasonable chance of winnins, and all that "the pull" consisted of was the abstaining from riding the horse out notwithstanding this fact. The committee cannot refrain from adding that in its opinion Rule 7 of Part XXXT. is faulty, and should be either re cast or eliminated altogether. Barlow's appeal is allowed, and the decision of the stewards is reversed. The deport lodged by Barlow will be refunded io him.