The recent abandonment of the race meet at Caymanas Park due to punter unrest has once again highlighted the growing frustration within the Jamaican horse racing community. At the heart of the discontent lies a longstanding issue: the lack of recourse available to punters when a horse they have bet on is disqualified.
While the connections of a disqualified horse have the option to appeal the decision, punters are left in the dark, with no clear avenue for compensation or recourse. This disparity has led to a growing sense of injustice and unfairness among bettors, who argue that the current system is tilted in favour of the industry and against the interests of consumers.
The issue of punter rights in horse racing has been a simmering concern for years, but it has intensified in recent times. The abandonment of the race meet on October 21 was a clear indication of the growing power and influence of punters, who are demanding to be treated fairly and with respect.
It is almost impossible to have 100 per cent approval from punters when a horse is disqualified. Some punters will agree, some will not, but it can never be a situation where those against resort to throwing debris and other missiles to vent anger thereby disrupting the livelihoods of others in the industry.
The established rule across every racing jurisdiction in the racing world is the process of appeal by any aggrieved party. Once a horse is disqualified from any position it is the right of the connections to appeal. That appeal is then heard by the regulatory body, in the case of Jamaica, the Racing Commission, and a decision taken.
When a horse is disqualified, there are going to be winners and losers. Holders of tickets on the horse disqualified will lose, while the holders of tickets of the promoted horse will benefit. So, it is in the racing worldwide.
Yet one has to concede that the incident on October 21, has raised questions about the adequacy of the current regulatory framework in Jamaican horse racing. Critics argue that the system is outdated and fails to adequately protect the interests of consumers. They have called for a review of the rules and regulations governing the sport.
Are there too many inexperienced stewards manning the fort on a race day? Should more individuals with actual race experience, like jockeys, be called upon to be stewards? Should a fund be established from winning tickets not cashed, to assist punters? Should more detailed reasons be given to punters as to why a horse is disqualified instead of the now familiar words of intimidation and interference? There are so many questions and few right answers.
The Jamaican horse racing industry is at a crossroads. The response of the Racing Commission to the events of October 21 will be watched closely.
4 Responses
a well written article ,let me say quick gallop..salient points as to this racing matter,inexperienced stewardship might be one of the problem..in tight quarters especially aproaching the finish when three horses are abreast or even two,contact is a must, intimidatory riding is where a jockey or jockeys deliberately block,squeeze,pin or any other measure to prevent the other horse/s from gaining advantage.did samantha fletcher do this,or did she defend john public's hard earned money to the max?
If you watch the race from the point when Walker shifted his whip to his right hand, he cause his mount to veer to the left, taking Samantha's ground and forcing her into an almost serious
collision with Roman's mount on her left. In avoiding that collision by now going to her right, she made contact with walkers mount. The fault was WALKER'S , NOT HERS. dont it?
Question. Why didn't Samantha try to keep a straight course leaving the half mile instead of using the whip continuously in the right hand,adding insult to injury she was standing so high in the saddle and so many strikes.Very poor display. However, the stewards have been very unproffesional in their duties.
Left handed whipping