Here is an example of how horse racing Stewards should officially report on their deliberations about a protest.
It is Racing Victoria Chief Steward Robert Cram’s report on the 1st v 2nd protest in last Saturday’s VRC St Leger at Flemington.
Cram explains the events and interference that the Stewards panel have seen, and the reasons for their collective decision to dismiss the protest.
10 out of 10.
The next one is a report from the Tasmanian Stipes, back in the days when thoroughbred horses were still racing in state (and greyhounds and pacers too).
Again, the Stewards describe what they see, what interference occurred, and provide a cogent reason to the racing public as to why they dismissed the objection.
Now we move to the Stewards report for race 5 at Gawler on Saturday, the one in which the world’s most obvious protest upheld decision came back as a dismissed.
The SA Stewards tell us not a single thing; not a thing that means anything anyway.
They considered the evidence, but don’t tell us what it was.
They watch the official footage, but don’t tell us what they see.
The make their own observations, but don’t tell us what they are.
They dismiss the protest, but don’t tell us why.
They don’t tell us why they still have a job.
They can’t, because they shouldn’t.
Neville Laskey was the foreman of the panel.
He’s the friend of Peter Chadwick that our Chief Under-Performing Steward hand picked to come over from Singapore to Rockhampton at our expense to be the Senior Steward.
Laskey lasted only long enough to unpack the moving boxes and give the dog a couple of bowls of water, and then decamped to South Australia.
On the evidence of this protest decision and its reporting, they can have him.
Do you reckon they’d be interested in a new Chief Steward too?