THE outcome of the 7½-furlong Open Allowance Poorlittlerichgirl Trophy, last Saturday’s feature, once again emphasises the need for the observance of certain protocols relating to the Jamaica Racing Commission(JRC) 1977 Racing Rules and the interpretation and application of sanctions.

Don Kwesi, favourite in the feature, ridden by Jahiem Anderson for trainer Barrington Bernard, dominated the early fractions and romped to be first past the post by 10½ lengths.

An inquiry, without the usual advisory, was announced. However, from both views, side and front, the replays showed no detectable incidence of intimidation or interference.

On the above assumption, there were three possibilities remaining:

Firstly, Don Kwesi ran as an ineligible entry.

Secondly, there was a failure to meet the requirement of Rule #216: “Upon the returning of a jockey to the place appointed for unsaddling after a race has been run, no one may touch the equipment of the jockey until he/she has been weighed in, except on the approval of the official in charge.”

Thirdly, and maybe most importantly, Rule #217(2) states: “If a jockey be more than 0.5 kilograms (1.1 lbs) less than the weight at which he/she weighed out or if a jockey be guilty of any fraudulent practice with respect to weight or weighing in of his/her horse shall be disqualified and the matter shall be reported to the stewards, who may fine or suspend the person responsible or report the matter to the commission.” Please note that the disqualification is mandatory.

It has been brought to my attention of this writer that there is a viewpoint circulating on social media that there is something amiss, and the connections of Don Kwesi may be involved. This is informed by the sheer ignorance and a propensity for mischief-making to undermine the integrity of the operatives in the racing industry.

Owner Kwanzi Bernard, trainer Barrington Bernard, and apprentice jockey Jahiem Anderson lost a lot; this happens every so often when a genuine error is made. Thinking this was deliberate and is nothing short of malicious, the perpetrator should desist from this practice in the future. Incidentally, although Don Kwesi was eliminated from the race and was treated as if it did not run, the performance should be included in the form lines with the indication of the disqualification for future analysis of its performance by the punters.

Whilst not stated specifically in the Racing Rules, there are things that the officials can do to enhance the understanding of the regulation of horse racing. With reference to the Don Kwesi inquiry and inevitable disqualification, there should be a mandatory advisory that the stewards were investigating a report from the “official in charge” that such a report was received.

By the way, in the United Kingdom (UK), following a race, this official in charge has the authority to formally lodge an objection to a horse “failing to draw the correct weight”. Also in the UK, in an inquiry, not affecting the performance of the winner, as a practical matter this is announced for the convenience of the punters.

The race day operation stewards have this responsibility and a lot more. Although it is thought otherwise, in terms of decisions, errors by these officials are traditionally rare. These operatives must deliver decisions under pressure within a stipulated time frame but there is an appellate JRC body for redress if deemed appropriate. Therefore, speaking of rarity, it is appeals that have this status.

One of the criticisms proffered is apparent inconsistency in some of the decisions of the race day panel of stewards. However, it must be borne in mind that no two incidents are exactly alike in terms of when, where, severity, and loss of advantage by the offended party — be it rider, horse, or both — occurred. Also, bear in mind it is a three-member panel where a unanimous or majority decision is delivered. Naturally, collective responsibility is a feature that remains confidential.

I imagine that since it is known by all interested parties that I am a sitting member of the JRC First Instance Tribunal and am also engaged in a literary capacity to review annual major races, I have to declare an interest in backing the integrity of the regulatory body. However, I would hope it is recognised that, as a journalist and broadcast racing analyst, there is no departure from an obligation to be fair and balanced.