KEY POINTS:
Chief stipendiary steward Cameron George is making no apologies for the harsh penalties suddenly being handed down to wayward jockeys.
George, who has impressed many with his forthright stance since taking the job last year, warned jockeys months ago stiffer penalties were on the way.
Just this week
Sam Spratt was given a one-month suspension and fined $5000 for causing interference in a group one race.
It is the second such suspension and fine for Spratt this year.
The Herald asked George for his opinion on the state of racing and the hands-on approach he appears to have taken with the stewards' panel:
Are you disappointed that jockeys generally seem not to have taken seriously warnings about tougher penalties?
Yes, its very disappointing from the stipes' perspective. Safety is paramount, however we also want to have an image that our racing is clean. But I believe that it's a broader issue in that we have owners that invest a lot of money into this industry and their chances of winning a race is taken away from them because riders do not ride within the rules. Racing relies on sponsorship and it's important that the race they sponsor receives publicity for the right reasons, not because it was marred by bad interference. I'm hoping the riders will take note that we will not being going backwards with penalties. We will continue to recommend tougher penalties to ensure we protect riders' safety, owners, trainers and sponsors.
Has New Zealand traditionally been too lenient on jockeys?
When I first arrived in New Zealand the average penalty was three days for careless riding and in some cases it was actually less. Given that we have increased the number of meetings by about 10 per cent I felt that was too low. Also, we had too much interference and the penalties were not acting as a deterrent factor so, yes, they had to increase. The stipendiary stewards' panel is more consistent across the nation now in asking for higher penalties.
Removing a jockey's right to earn a living is a tough call. Do you see it as the ultimate, or only viable penalty?
Yes it is a tough call at times, but for the said reasons it has to be done. It's the ultimate deterrent because not only do riders lose their ability to earn an income, potentially they could miss out on riding the next Derby favourite because while they're on the sidelines someone else gets their rides. Fines alone are not appropriate because the jockey will just pay it and move on without a lesson being learned, and in some cases I would assure you that the jockey wouldn't be the one paying the fine.
Is it a case of one or two jockeys not heeding warnings, or is it more widespread?
Generally, all jockeys ride with care. It seems to be that when the big money is on offer riders may throw more caution to the wind than they normally would in a race worth a lesser stake. Some riders we seem to have in the stewards' room more than others, but again, that's where the right penalties have to be applied.
Changing policies is never easy. Have you felt resentment?
Of course, I think in general people don't like change. I can honestly say that now, 18 months after my arrival, I feel I have a very good working relationship with the participants. Respect is important to me. I know people are in this industry to run a business and be successful and I respect that, however I expect the same. I feel the mutual respect between us now has resulted in a more positive outlook on the changes. It's also very important when making changes that we are transparent with the reasons and what outcomes we seek to achieve. Under the guidance of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing CEO Paul Bittar this is done very well.
The system of the stipendiary stewards being prosecutors and the Judicial Control Authority the judge and jury is different from what you were used to in Australia. Your thoughts?
Initially, I found it difficult but over time I have adapted to the system. I still have an issue about how long it can take for matters to be heard whether it be raceday or otherwise. But the current system provides an independent process for all parties, which is a good concept. Obviously I don't want to see anyone denied natural justice, but it's important that the JCA executives continue to improve the skills of panellists so that they have a clear understanding of racing as I think at times some panellists get too wrapped up in the legalities of the rule/case.
Do you think the JCA has parallel thinking to stipendiary control?
I don't think so. It's a process where all parties are in a position where they have to prove charges and have the evidence to support the case. They are independent and it's up to me to prove what I put before them. I know some parts of the industry don't feel that way, but I have lost enough cases to know otherwise.
There's been confusion lately on the process of protests. Your thoughts?
The current rule is actually not a hard rule to interpret, yet interpreting it as it's written doesn't always result in the right outcome in my view. I have an issue with the fact that a horse can win a race by three lengths and after interfering with a horse that ran fourth can lose the race so easily. I feel the winner and punters need more protection. In respect to the interference, we can handle that in the room. The proposed rule that's applied throughout Asia and Australia will offer that protection but still offers any runner the opportunity of being promoted if their chances have been affected. It's essential that the proposed rule is adopted because we are an international sport and we need to fall into line with the countries where our product attracts betting interest. Currently, it's like a try in a Super 14 match awarded differently in Sydney on a Friday night to how it would be awarded in NZ on the Saturday night.
What other changes are coming?
No immediate changes apart from what's currently proposed. I will constantly review and consult with the industry about the way we can improve. It's imperative that we continue to move forward with overseas jurisdictions.