view raw text
BETWEEN R. AC E S % °sc** om HOLLYWOOD PARK, Inglewood, Calif., June 14. — Several columns ago this writer commented upon the action of the Arizona Racing Commission in suspending the entire board of stewards at Rillito Track, Tucson. In line with our policy of giving both sides of any question, we are printing, in part, a letter from C. Thad Mullen, secretary of the commission. The commission suspended the stewards over the latters failure to suspend trainer Greet Lewis following a positive procaine report on the horse Parkers Trouble. Says Mullen-: "You will notice this case was not at all unusual and had it been handled in conformity with the rules and regulations, or any standard procedure used the country over, there never would have been any trouble or undue publicity about it. It seems as though there is a great deal of stress being brought upon the assumption that W. D. Parker owner is the chief recipient of mistreatment by this commission, but as a matter of fact, Parker was involved only .to the extent of losing the purses. Neither he nor his horse, Parkers Trouble, were suspended, even though Parker was allowed, by the Rillito race track and the stewards of that meeting to race his horses for the past two years without an owners license from the commission-. Greet Lewis, who was the trainer for Mr. Parker, according to his own testimony, had never read the rule book in his life and had been training and running horses for the past two years while under license by this commission. He was not accused of, nor penalized for, anything other than neglect in the care of the horse in his charge, and for such was suspended for a period of 90 days. In view of the foregoing facts, it most certainly would take some stretching of the imagination to place this in the category of as per your reference a fantastic story. Arizona Board Explains Action at Tucson Upholds Stand in Suspending Its Stewards Quarter Horse, Thoroughbred Feud Denied Tucson Sportsmen Sticking by Their Guns "It appears to me," continues Mullen, "that the only thing that seems almost fantastic about it is the fact that the stewards, including one representing this commission, suspended the purses and failed to suspend the trainer who, by all the rules and regulations the country over, is the sole insurer of and is responsible for the condition of the- horses in his charge which are entered to race and sent to the post, and that an owner was allowed to run horses f*r such a length of time without a license. If this commission had upheld the ruling of the stewards in this case it, in all probability, would have set a precedent which, to my knowledge, has never been heard of and one to which the majority of thiscommis-sion did not care to be a party to. You mentioned in your column that Mr. Parker had entered a suit ..but this office has no knowledge of any suit being filed. Mr. Parker did file a motion with this commission for a rehearing of the case but as yet no official action has been taken on it. This case has been given quite a lot of publicity, some of which unfortunately has been misleading. This commission has worked long and hard in trying to better racing conditions in Arizona and we believe that the results are beginning .to show; Each instance of adverse publicity, however, tends to slow the progress being made and it is with the utmost hopefulness that we await your clarification of the pertaining facts and present; them to the racing public through your column. "Your intimation of some sort of a feud between thoroughbred interests and quarter horse interests also seems to me to be unfounded," concluded Mullen. "Quarter horse interests have always been given due consideration by this commission in proportion to- their earning .power in the way of state revenue and to their popularity with the racing public. And the same racing rules are applicable to both quarter horse and thoroughbred racing. In reference wto your statement that the racing public at Tucson were in accord with the management over this case as evidenced by their large turn out. Is it not feasible to believe that the . reason for the large turn out might have been, in addition to it being the last day of the meeting and also a charity day, a public sentiment that the racing commission were making a determined effort to protect the interest of the wagering public, resulting in a display of confidence by wagering in excess of 0,000?, The chairman of the commission has read and approved this letter and further suggests that I remind you that this commission never has and never intends to allow any racing association under its jurisdiction to operate with one set of rules for the rich man and one set for the poor man." AAA As long as a matter of factual accuracy has been posed, we are going to add a word of ourjown. Any story doing with the firing of a board of stewards is unprecedented, so far as we can discover, in American racing. By that I mean when a meeting is in progress. Mr. Parker has not entered suit, but my advice at the time the original column was written was that he would the next day, but we now learn that he has delayed any legal action upon pondering the fact that he is in fact with- Coniinued on Page Thirty BETWEEN RACES By OSCAR OTIS Continued from Page Forty out an owners license. His attorney advised him to wait until the case was finally adjucated by the commission. As for a feud between the thoroughbred and quarter horse, people, a great many reputable people in Tucson inform, me they blame the action of the commission three out of five members attending on such a feud, and whether this is true or not, a lot of folks in Tucson believe it, and are not hesitant to say so. As for the public reaction in Tucson, the records of the daily press, and the articles printed on the subject, speak for themselves. Nor can I agree that it is mandatory to rule a trainer off for gross neglect after a stimulation case, as witness the case of Charlie Pinon with the mare, Fate, in Chicago. Or, for that matter, the De Luxe incident in Kentucky. AAA The matter will come up for a final hearing at a board meeting in Phoenix next Tuesday. At that time, the commission is expected to issue a statement. The current feeling in Tucson may be summed up as follows: The commission was within its power to take the action it did, but inasmuch as there was no moral guilt evident in the case, or impugned, they felt the action in suspending the stewards was too drastic. It is admitted that the stewards used poor judgment in deciding an issue which properly should have been determined by the commission. But, at the same time, they feel that the ruling was unfair in that it omitted any mention of the fact that there was no deliberate intent to defraud, and hence some people might have gotten the impression that this was just another stimulation case. The stewards acted unwisely but in good faith. There is one point in which Mr. Mullen and the writer quite agree. That is that Arizona racing is" making great strides under a racing commission, which only comparatively recently replaced the tax commission as the controlling agency of the sport. We believe that both the commission and the management of Rillito and the tracks in Phoenix are working toward the same end. We visited both Phoenix and Tucson last winter and found the racing at both points to Jae on a high plane, and with officials striving toward a goal that would make Arizona racing as fine as any in America, even if not the biggest. In case you are curious as to why Parker was racing without a license, it must be remembered that racing in Tucson grew from spontaneous impromptu affairs into a modern race track. Some of the cattlemen, like Dink Parker, just never thought of getting a license, and we suppose the stewards just thought he hadone. "
