Protect the integrity of horse racing from the boardroom

For a sport that struggles, internationally, to attract new and younger participants, primarily bettors, to whom all associated industries owe their survival, the integrity of horse racing must be upheld with no stone left unturned in delivering punishments that befit the crime.

Similarly, should any party be cleared of an alleged rule breach, such matters cannot be a secret affair later passed off in a Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) one-paragraph press release as “explanation accepted”, or, as in the recent case of MCMULLEN’s awful run behind upsetter BRAHMA BULL, “After hearing his submission, trainer Peter-John Parsard was exonerated”.

In the MCMULLEN issue, the stewards acted on Rule 200, a foundational principle that every horse must be run on its merits, specifically sub-section (4), which addresses instances where a horse shows an unexplained, sudden, or inconsistent deterioration in its performance during a race.

It cannot be that, after “exonerating” Parsard, the racing public is blindfolded by a press release. Not one of the commissioners who heard Parsard’s case would have (hopefully) wagered a dollar on MCMULLEN.

John Public’s money was wagered on MCMULLEN, giving bettors every right to know why a horse who chased home PEPPER STEPPER in its previous race, finished down the track behind lesser rivals the same day his conqueror stepped up to overnight-allowance company and wired last year’s Grade 1 Bruceontheloose winner OF A REVOLUTION.

Another matter deserving mention is jockey Abigail Able’s 25-day suspension for her ride aboard MANDY in the second race on Saturday, August 29.

Able, a female rider primarily attached to champion trainer Jason DaCosta’s stable, a barn in which she started her career with Jason’s father, late-18-time champion and Hall of Famer Wayne DaCosta, was hit with the maximum ban, found in breach of Rule 200(ii).

The stewards ruled that Able “failed to display any effort to encourage her mount to obtain a better placing, during the final 400 metres of the race”, which even the most novice of racegoers would have observed, more so regulators watching the same riders twice weekly.

Jockeys should understand, possibly the stewards need to remind them every racemeet, that, though they may be riding on trainers’ instructions, it is their licence, and livelihood, that is put on the line every time they climb aboard a horse in any race whether, as the rules state, ‘the owner and/or trainer runs another horse in the race or not’, satisfying ‘the rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible placing in the race’.

Ms Able’s suspension should serve as a warning and example to all — owners, trainers and jockeys — who, for whatever reason, do anything that contravenes the JRC’s rules, which were put in place to preserve and protect the integrity of horse racing and the betting dollar of already-sceptical bettors.

Digressing a bit, both promoting company Supreme Ventures Racing and Entertainment Limited (SVREL) and JRC, a conveniently ‘blind’ facilitator, are guilty of a practice which results in ‘in-and-out running’, the term used to describe the charge on which Parsard was summoned to explain MCMULLEN’s underperformance.

Oftentimes when races need to be ‘filled’, the racing office, seeking to increase the number of starters required to stage a competitive field at the time of nomination, contact trainers with eligible horses to buffer the line-up, runners who were not under consideration by their connections in the first instance.

Projections and conditions for upcoming races are published/issued weeks in advance to which owners, trainers and jockeys’ agents are all privy, giving every opportunity for nomination, which should be a sterile process until the overnight programme is released.

Instead, owners, trainers and jockeys’ agents are being alerted to insufficient fields, which are then filled by horses who were not prepared for the race in question, many ending up as early or late non-starters, both of which affect various bets staked by punters, who are now assigned off-time favourites, some of whom end up as losers.

Many of the fillers making it past the non-starter stage are partnered by fringe riders, who, in turn, ride to instructions at the detriment of their licences. An even more abominable act is when top riders partner fillers, giving the unaware betting public the impression that these horses were ‘genuine’ nominations.

By calling trainers to fill races, the promoting company is fertilising seeds of non-compliance to Rule 200. Whereas the financial rationale of filling races is obvious, instead of putting its own product at risk of disrepute, SVREL should seriously start looking at reverting to seven, no more than eight, categories of runners, abandoning the almost 20 categories under its present system of racing.

A dwindling horse population cannot support upwards of 15 categories of horses, requiring three different distances — sprint, middle and long — to stage competitive racing. Eight categories, A-G, each group run within varying rating bands on different days, would solve the problem of insufficient fields, providing equitable competition and robust betting.