Sport - Racing : Horse   

Are stewards playing to the gallery?

By H.S. Manjunath

BANGALORE Sept. 22. The decision by the Stewards of the Mysore Race Club to declare the Sidapur Plate (Div. II), second race on last Friday's card, null and void may be without precedent but it is surrounded by shades of populism.

When the Stewards' decision was made known, there was understandable jubilation in the stands solely because all investments were to be returned. At the end of it all there was no winner or no loser. A kind of a situation that generally pleases the gallery. But what about its repurcussions on the sport in particular. How will a game as complex as racing cope with such a hugely impacting decision when it is not backed by sound reasoning.

The least the stewards could have done is to let the world at large know what prompted them to take such a critical step as calling a "fair'' race void. If the Stewards had seen something "fishy'' or unfair about the way the race was run, then what is it that prevented them from saying so. Punting public has a right to know what the din is all about.

The stewards obviously have given little thought to the after-effects. The most dreadful one is to deal with public outcry whenever a hot shot gets beat the next time involving two horses from the same owner. Will the stewards apply the same logic? If they do, half the season's races perhaps will have to be declared null and void! The world wide average shows that only 20 to 25 per cent of the favourites win whether it is Belmont, Woodbine, Sha Tin, Kranji or our own backyard!

It is time some of the sports governing bodies shed the blinkered thinking that horse racing is all about favourites winning or losing. It is more multi-dimensional than that.

If the stewards stuck to this decision to appease public sentiment, then they could not have made a graver mistake than this. The wider public opinion is that the order should have been allowed to stand because there was nothing unfair to warrant scrapping of the race altogether. Interestingly, that is the way the stipendiary stewards also felt. Unhesitatingly they told the stewards as much. But the stewards in exercise of their wide powers chose to ignore the stipes' advise.

That pops a rather serious question. If you don't want to take suggestions made by the professionals you have hired what are they there for? Either it reflects poorly on the decision-makers or on the advisors? On both counts, horse racing is the loser.

If you try to rationalise the race itself, it splits into three sections. The first involves the rider of Odysseus, the unheralded Nasir Imam, who hardly gets a couple of rides a season. If it was his mistake that led to a fiasco like this, the simpler solution would have been to take the rider to task. Apparently there was no mala fide intention on the part of the rider. It was just that he thought he had won the race, eased his mount and to his utter shock not one but two pounced on him in the shadow of the post.

This by no means is an unusual occurrence. It has happened to the best of jockeys. The most famous case that can be recalled is that of Al Mazourk ridden by none other than Vasanth Shinde, who rather over confidently eased his mount in the final stages only to find Karan Singh on Shoulder to Shoulder nose him out in the last stride. Shinde was slapped with suspension. Dubiously enough, it was the Karan Singh-trained Society Times which got into the eye of the storm here. Society Times on whom there was an "inspired touch'' carried the same silks as Odysseus and managed to peg back the fast tiring favourite.

The lesser fancied runner of a particular owner beating the fancied runner from the same owner is nothing new in racing. It has happened before. It is bound to happen many times over as long as racing exists. But unless the stewards have conclusive evidence to show that the rider of the fancied runner has helped the rider of the longer priced horse wearing the same colour in one way or another, how can they presume that there is some connivance between the two. Besides there was the most noticeable third force emerging in the finish, Clueless Puzzle.

The more orderly way of dealing with a situation like this would have been to call the rider of Odysseus to question and hold an enquiry involving the riders of Society Times and Clueless Puzzle. By taking the race away, the stewards have clearly sent a wrong message, however well-intentioned they may be.

It is a clear case of the stewards over-reaching themselves to please the grand stand at the cost of the rules of the game. With wide ranging power comes the responsibility of upholding the public trust and the stewards are deemed to be its guardians.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

Cricket

• A great challenge: Fleming
• Clean sweep for Pakistan
• Suresh, Doss slam centuries
  
  Tennis
  
• Sunil loses in first round
• Preethi puts out Pooja
  
  Hockey
  
• Japan, Pakistan ensure semifinal spots
  
  Football
  
• Iran lifts J.R.D. Tata Cup
  
  Athletics
  
• Ishikawa halts Chinese gold hunt
  
  Chess
  
• Abhijit stuns Dinesh
  
  Racing : Horse
  
• Are stewards playing to the gallery?
  
  Racing : Motor
  
• Naren-Ramkumar duo on a roll
  
  Swimming
  
• Shikha, Akbar adjudged best swimmers
  
  Table Tennis
  
• Raman, Poulomi reign supreme
• Domestic tournaments lack competitive edge
  
  

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu