October
SeptemberWrong way around?
When comparing penalties imposed on wrongdoers by Racing Victoria, stark and difficult-to-comprehend variations are apparent.
Victoria’s highest-profile jockey has just returned from an eight-month disqualification, which may have been an eight-year jail sentence had the offence occurred in Hong Kong.
That jurisdiction exemplifies world’s best practice in its pursuit of perfection in integrity-related matters, and in so doing inspires betting confidence unparalleled anywhere —as is readily apparent in its massive turnover.
A few short years ago one of Victoria’s lowest-profile jockeys, a woman whose competence I endorse by being not shy to back her mounts, was found guilty of using an electrical device, a "jigger", at trackwork to encourage a recalcitrant horse to do its best.
The motive for using a battery on a horse is to stimulate performance with a view to winning, not losing.
The jockey, to her credit, pleaded guilty — and was disqualified for three years.
I invite readers to compare an eight-month disqualification (plus two-month suspension), to be served at the least inconvenient time, for a high-profile rider with 10,000 reasons to hope his mount does not win, with a three-year sentence for a no-profile jockey using a device to encourage a horse to do its best, to improve its winning prospects and possibly extend its stable life.
It should be noted that, unlike banned drugs, electrical stimulation can at most only encourage a horse to do its best.
Do other readers of the Winning Post think that the two sentences should have been the other way around?
Rutherglen (Vic)