Owner of Miniature Man , Elizabeth DaCosta, in a letter sent to the chairman of the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) Clovis Metcalfe and shared with the media, has questioned the move by the JRC to start an investigation into the dead-heat result in the Kingston Stakes (May 8) involving her horse and Further and Beyond without her being present at said investigation.

DaCosta stated in her communication that it was her letter of appeal that produced an investigation and as such she should have been invited to the investigation being the complainant.

Last week the JRC started an investigation into the dead-heat result but after submissions were made by lawyers representing the commission and the promoting company Supreme Ventures Racing and Entertainment Limited (SVREL), the JRC chose instead to hand the matter over to its First Instance Tribunal. The First Instance Tribunal is expected to meet sometime next week to look into this dead-heat issue.

DaCosta’s full letter is published below:

Mr Clovis Metcalfe

Chairman

Jamaica Racing Commission

8 Winchester Road

Kingston 10

Dear Chairman Metcalfe,

The JRC first refused to accept my appeal, the after accepting the appeal, wrote to me stating that my letter of appeal would result in an investigation and indicated there would be no appeal and the appeal fee would be refunded.

If I am the complainant whose letter produced an investigation, could you explain to me how the JRC met with the persons complained about, SVREL and JRC raceday officials, without my being invited as the complainant and allowed to participate?

Incidentally, my position is that “Final” in Rule 53 means final for the raceday and the wording of the Rule and reference to the “Official Signal” in Rule 53 makes that the only possible interpretation. Please note that Rule 54 confirms that as the only possible interpretation, as it requires the raceday official “Judge” to send a report to the JRC, who obviously has a post raceday function to perform after the raceday official’s powers under the Rules have ended.

If I am the complainant, why have I not been provided with a copy of the Section 54 report for the race in question?

In cases the JRC thinks that this situation has not happened in other racing jurisdictions, I enclose reports readily available on the internet where the British Horseracing Authority has corrected a result wrongly decided on the raceday. Your Stewards should be very familiar with the distinction between those of their decisions that are final on the raceday but can be later changed by the JRC.

For the good of racing can the JRC be open and transparent and not meet with the persons complained about behind closed doors, in the absence of the complainant?

Elizabeth DaCosta