The abandonment of races three to nine on the 2024 Heroes’ Day programme and the action taken by the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) requires an objective analysis. For readers who may not be aware, following race two there was a Stewards’ Inquiry resulting in the disqualification of the horse first past the post.

In terms of the interpretation of the incident, the bettors, many of whom did not back the horse in question, took umbrage at the conclusion of the Stewards and responded in an unexpected manner. This is the first time in the history of the sport punters went beyond disagreeing with the stewards verbally and therefore resorted to action which breached the limited security. This resulted in trainers and riders feeling intimidated and disinclined to continue the races.

Whether this disqualification was a clear and obvious error on the part of race day stewards or otherwise, the bettors were obliged to accept the official result on the day. However, if the owner of the disqualified horse feels aggrieved, appropriate action is available by way of an appeal. Incidentally, at the over 100 off-track betting points of sale, there are no reports of any response similar to the Caymanas customers at the track.

It must be considered that wagering on horse racing is dissimilar to an exact lotteries’ numbers game. There are other factors that can influence the declaration of dividends with changes to the official order of the finish of any race by the Stewards. In fact, explicitly in wagering on horse racing, there is an agreement by the punters to accept the official results.

The Betting, Gaming & Lotteries Commission (BGLC) must from now on insist on compliance by the licensed purveyors of gaming to ensure the customers are informed as to responsibilities on either side. The relevant disclaimers and other regulations relating to wagering should be displayed at all points of sale as a matter of legal protection for all parties.

Turning now to the subsequent action of the JRC board, to suspend the race day panel of operation stewards for six months and ordering the sitting of refresher courses for the entire cohort of the body, is entirely understandable in the circumstances. In the interest of the protection of the integrity of the racing product, the board, in exercising its authority, had to respond with immediacy given the sensitivity of this particular issue.

Whether or not the decisions taken were appropriate can be debated but the board had to respond decisively. What has emerged is that there is a general lack of trust in the competence of the stewards. However, ironically their decisions have been correct by over 95 per cent for a very long time. To accuse the stewards of possible dishonesty is grossly unfair and unreasonable as they, as well as all other JRC race day operatives, are required by contract to not be involved in wagering.

The loss incurred by the owners to honour the day’s declarations has several expensive dynamics in basic and other expenses such as charges for veterinary services. As things stand, appearance fees naturally fall short of what is desirable but at the very least should still be payable in this circumstance to the 56 affected connections of the horses denied the opportunity to race.

Speaking again of irony, promoting company Supreme Ventures Racing & Entertainment Limited had no part in, or responsibility for the abandonment of the seven races but suffered significant loss of revenue. Therefore, the expense to satisfy this proposed reimbursement of appearance fees should be for the accounts of the JRC and the BGLC. The discussion over the possibility of a purse increase from the promoters continues and any disruption only exacerbates the matter.