Following my article two weeks ago, I was contacted by Christopher Armond, chief executive officer of the Arima Race Club (ARC), who advised that in Jamaica, the term "native bred" was used to refer to all West Indian bred horses.
This would therefore mean that the Jamaican Classics are in fact open to horses bred anywhere in the Caribbean. While I was unable to ascertain if a horse bred ANYWHERE ELSE in the Caribbean had EVER taken part in any Jamaican Classic, this correction sounds very curious indeed.
It is widely accepted that each Caribbean island has its own unique accent, it was hitherto however not widely accepted that we each also had our own definition of certain words commonly used in the English language. Webster's Dictionary defines "native" as "belonging to a particular place by birth." As such, when in T&T we refer to native bred, we mean bred in T&T.
The Jamaicans would have us believe that when they refer to native bred, they mean bred in the Caribbean. I will leave it to the reader to discern but my recommendation to the Jamaicans is that if they do mean to refer to all West Indian breds when they say "native", please change the term native bred to West Indian bred in the terms and conditions for entry into the classics.
This will avoid all future ambiguity and obviate the need for Webster and other esteemed dictionaries having to do a reprint to revise the meaning of a commonly used word. Just a suggestion.
Another curious development is the approach being taken by the ARC, in the sub-dividing of races when there are abundant entries. This matter reared its head again last Saturday when there was a maiden race for "native" bred animals, not the Jamaican definition of the term.
Connections of horses with multiple (two or more) entries were surprised to see that the ARC, having decided to split the race, placed all of their entries in the same division. Only one trainer, John O'Brien, who had three entries, saw two in one division and the other in the next. Incidentally O'Brien, as a result, was able to win both divisions.
What was even more perplexing was the reason given for that situation. This was not the unfortunate result of a random draw to split the event but a split based on the handicap rating of the entries. And this is where it gets even cloudier as the eventual O'Brien trained winner Tan Tan's time was over two seconds slower( 1.09.3 as compared to 1.07.1) than the first division, in lengths around 10 to 12 lengths behind the first division. Those that are of suspicious mind cannot be calmed. It is this lack of trust and transparency that is eroding the fabric of horseracing in this country.
Please remember that this was a maiden race where the main difference in rating would be due to the sex allowance and, for horses that had previously raced a few times, possibly seen their handicap mark lowered. The ARC's argument is that they believed that would make the two races more competitive. The question to be answered is whether this manipulation adds or subtracts to transparency in decision making and whether the application of this approach is fair to all.
Consider the case of an owner with two unraced horses making their debut. If they are both colts, they would have the highest rating and therefore be placed in the same division. This cannot be fair to that owner who would have been denied the opportunity to win two first place prizes. A similar situation applies to trainers of two horses entered for the event. This cannot be fair. The most logical approach would have been for the ARC to start by separating animals with common connections (trainer and/or owner) and then applying the policy of allocating by handicap rating.
The sport depends on owners, trainers and punters and so their interests must be balanced at ALL times. This should apply not just to the maiden races but all races. No one is disadvantaged since arguably it could have been one race with reserves but it hard for connections with multiple entries to swallow a split which placed all of their horses in one of the divisions. Common sense should be applied at all times.
Then we have the issue of the financial state of the Arima Race Club. It is understood that placed prize money has not been paid for a few race days and that some owners are being asked to not attempt to cash in their winner's cheques from as far back as Boxing Day 2014.
Information has been purported that it is the delinquency of a financial institution, that has led to such delays, how plausible in this technological age this is, will be a matter for the administrative arm of the ARC. However a lack of payment is a very worrying situation, especially when the prize money for races run are generally funded by the Betting Levy Board.
If the above is correct, urgent review of the Club's expenses will be required. General observation has been that the Club's operating expenses have become a bit bloated. Some deep analysis of its financial situation is required and there are sufficient skilled people on the management committee to undertake this task. The general perception of most onlookers is that the Arima Race Club is not making the most prudent decisions in its day to day management. You get the feeling it is a case of dumb and dumber running the show. Holistic decisions are needed.
In this respect, it was pleasing to note reports coming out of the TTRA that common sense has finally prevailed on the issue of threshold levels for specified medications. Hopefully, we can now put this matter behind us and press on with dealing with the other challenges confronting the sport.