hobbes
27-03-2002, 14:13
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
ON THE RAILS Need to beware of overreaction in 'Exceptional' circumstances
ALAN AITKEN
The Jockey Club has promised a review of its stewarding procedures in the light of last week's highly controversial protest outcome at Happy Valley - the "round up the usual suspects" declaration that flows from Club officials every time some single highlight incident occurs. In the past year, no review finding has been made public nor any significant change announced as a result of said reviews, but that is another discussion.
Yes, a majority of people did not agree with the stewards' decision on what was indeed the 'Exceptional' protest. Yes, it caused quite some consternation and sufficient stirring that the Club felt the need to make public reply via television.
Incidentally, the official insistence in that video that the two-length crossing rule was breached by Vincent Sit last week, and thus gave a basis for upholding the protest, is a curious one. This rule is even more relevant to careless riding and, as Sit continued to ride De Integro for the length of the straight, it seems curious he was not even reprimanded. Good luck to Vincent, but it would seem in the circumstances that, whether he kept the race or not, he was guilty regarding the separate issue of careless riding.
But the bigger-picture question is whether this single incident revealed gaping flaws in the system of stewarding in Hong Kong so that it now needs some tinkering it did not need a week ago. Hardly.
This writer has been present in the stewards' rooms of Australian racing for scores of objections, valid and ridiculous, Group One races and maidens. Some of them were tight, others clear-cut.
The overwhelming majority were decided sensibly and correctly, and every now and again one had an outcome as unfathomable as the one last Wednesday night. But the system itself, and the rationale on which decisions lie, remained sound despite an aberrant decision, as is the system in Hong Kong under chief stipe John Schreck.
It is an open secret that the voting from the seven-man stewards' panel at Happy Valley was 4-3 in favour of upholding the protest. The fact that some voices in the Jockey Club are talking of moving to a system requiring a more decisive majority than that is enough evidence that this was the margin.
But moving to a larger majority requirement, perhaps even the requirement of unanimity amongst the stewards, makes a mockery of the process. While absolute majority votes are often required in parliaments and councils, that requirement is based on the high probability that politicians, God bless them, may have the backing of parties with an interest in the passage or otherwise of legislation. It is a safety net that presupposes commercial interest on some sides and seeks to reduce the weight of those votes for the good of the wider community.
When the stewards sit down to vote on an objection - or to perform any other task for that matter - the racing judicial system presupposes no special interest. It is crucial to the integrity of the process. So surely then, the current voting system already demands an absolute majority in a notional sense.
The stewards do not vote on whether Exceptional may have been cost the race. They vote on whether they can be comfortable that Exceptional absolutely was cost the race by De Integro or his rider. In principle, any steward not certain that the protest must be upheld must vote to overrule.
Thus, a 4-3 vote represents that the panel is collectively certain that decision is the right one. To suggest a 4-3 vote isn't certain and a 5-2 vote must be is to ignore that two stewards have still voted to overrule in the second case. At 6-1, the same idea applies. Yet, a unanimous vote requirement would ignore the reality that many objections are toss-of-the-coin decisions with strong arguments for both sides.
Still, the aspect always expected of stewarding is consistency, and this is one area where the Jockey Club does have room for review. Any number of punters and pundits have recounted how they have seen objections dismissed despite "much stronger cases" than last week's matter.
While seven sit on the racing stewards panel at any meeting, only five of them are the professional stewards present on a consistent basis and the other two are a voting steward and a member. These two members represent 28 per cent of the collective opinion of the stewards, a swing from meeting to meeting which may have a telling effect on decisions.
We will never know which stewards voted for what last Wednesday, but would the panel collective have voted the same way on the same incident had it occurred the week, the month or the year before?
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
ON THE RAILS Need to beware of overreaction in 'Exceptional' circumstances
ALAN AITKEN
The Jockey Club has promised a review of its stewarding procedures in the light of last week's highly controversial protest outcome at Happy Valley - the "round up the usual suspects" declaration that flows from Club officials every time some single highlight incident occurs. In the past year, no review finding has been made public nor any significant change announced as a result of said reviews, but that is another discussion.
Yes, a majority of people did not agree with the stewards' decision on what was indeed the 'Exceptional' protest. Yes, it caused quite some consternation and sufficient stirring that the Club felt the need to make public reply via television.
Incidentally, the official insistence in that video that the two-length crossing rule was breached by Vincent Sit last week, and thus gave a basis for upholding the protest, is a curious one. This rule is even more relevant to careless riding and, as Sit continued to ride De Integro for the length of the straight, it seems curious he was not even reprimanded. Good luck to Vincent, but it would seem in the circumstances that, whether he kept the race or not, he was guilty regarding the separate issue of careless riding.
But the bigger-picture question is whether this single incident revealed gaping flaws in the system of stewarding in Hong Kong so that it now needs some tinkering it did not need a week ago. Hardly.
This writer has been present in the stewards' rooms of Australian racing for scores of objections, valid and ridiculous, Group One races and maidens. Some of them were tight, others clear-cut.
The overwhelming majority were decided sensibly and correctly, and every now and again one had an outcome as unfathomable as the one last Wednesday night. But the system itself, and the rationale on which decisions lie, remained sound despite an aberrant decision, as is the system in Hong Kong under chief stipe John Schreck.
It is an open secret that the voting from the seven-man stewards' panel at Happy Valley was 4-3 in favour of upholding the protest. The fact that some voices in the Jockey Club are talking of moving to a system requiring a more decisive majority than that is enough evidence that this was the margin.
But moving to a larger majority requirement, perhaps even the requirement of unanimity amongst the stewards, makes a mockery of the process. While absolute majority votes are often required in parliaments and councils, that requirement is based on the high probability that politicians, God bless them, may have the backing of parties with an interest in the passage or otherwise of legislation. It is a safety net that presupposes commercial interest on some sides and seeks to reduce the weight of those votes for the good of the wider community.
When the stewards sit down to vote on an objection - or to perform any other task for that matter - the racing judicial system presupposes no special interest. It is crucial to the integrity of the process. So surely then, the current voting system already demands an absolute majority in a notional sense.
The stewards do not vote on whether Exceptional may have been cost the race. They vote on whether they can be comfortable that Exceptional absolutely was cost the race by De Integro or his rider. In principle, any steward not certain that the protest must be upheld must vote to overrule.
Thus, a 4-3 vote represents that the panel is collectively certain that decision is the right one. To suggest a 4-3 vote isn't certain and a 5-2 vote must be is to ignore that two stewards have still voted to overrule in the second case. At 6-1, the same idea applies. Yet, a unanimous vote requirement would ignore the reality that many objections are toss-of-the-coin decisions with strong arguments for both sides.
Still, the aspect always expected of stewarding is consistency, and this is one area where the Jockey Club does have room for review. Any number of punters and pundits have recounted how they have seen objections dismissed despite "much stronger cases" than last week's matter.
While seven sit on the racing stewards panel at any meeting, only five of them are the professional stewards present on a consistent basis and the other two are a voting steward and a member. These two members represent 28 per cent of the collective opinion of the stewards, a swing from meeting to meeting which may have a telling effect on decisions.
We will never know which stewards voted for what last Wednesday, but would the panel collective have voted the same way on the same incident had it occurred the week, the month or the year before?
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm