Cliff Williams, Contributor

There are times when I find the thinking of certain administrators strange and really difficult to understand, leading one to wonder what logic informs many decisions.

I refer specifically to the appeal heard by the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) of jockey Paul Francis, who rode Wind Jammer on March 3.

Francis' complaint was that jockey Patrick Henry Jr., who rode the winner Tassy's Whip was not the holder of jockey's licence on the day and the horse should therefore be disqualified.

After hearing evidence from Henry Jr., trainerRobert Derby and the supervising Operation Steward, the commission found that the jockey was ineligible to ride on the day and this was not determined through an administrative error.

The commission, on the basis of the evidence, disqualified the horse Tassy's Whip from the race in question, meaning that it was treated as if it did not participate in the race at all.

Further, that jockey Patrick Henry Jr would be required to pay a fine of $10,000 for failing to disclose to the trainer the fact of his ineligibility to ride on the day. The commission also determined that the horse Tassy's Whip, by virtue of entry into the saddling enclosure, was properly the subject of a claim.

Sums

Taking into account the administrative error, the commission deemed that it would be inequitable for the owner, trainer and groom of Tassy's Whip to be deprived of sums which would ordinarily have flowed to them by virtue of the win. The commission therefore will pay over these sums to the horse's connections by special award and I am happy for the recipient I have doubts about the efficacy of this award.

I really find these decisions of the commission to be a little odd from a standpoint of being logical and therefore sensible. It would seem to me that in light of the evidence the commission went much too far in resolving this matter. What I find puzzling also is that the commission in its press release did not cite the racing rules' stipulation on what would constitute a basis for disqualification in this particular circumstance.

In my view, unless the JRC racing rules has a specific position on this issue, the commission in arriving at a decision to disqualify should have given more weight to the fact that the jockey is a legitimate professional rider, but whose permit was not in force on the day. His participation therefore was only made possible by administrative error and has left him as the sole perpetrator of an act of deception and should have been dealt with as such. The horse met all other criteria for entry in all respects, won with the correct weight, caused no interference and did not carry a prohibitive substance.

In these circumstances therefore, it would seem to me that the jockey has only received the proverbial slap on the wrist with this fine of only $10,000 and the commission went overboard paying over the purses to the connections.

The punishment for such acts of deception should be of such penal magnitude that it is sufficient as a deterrent.