Can someone explain to me why he's lost his contract with the BHA? It's a mistake. Everyone makes them. Did he try to cover it up? Even if he did is that sufficient to lose your job of 13 years? The BHA statement is particularly warming Following an internal investigation regarding the announcement of the incorrect result in the £200 Free Bets At Betdaq Maiden Stakes at Kempton on Wednesday 26th June 2013, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has established that Standard Operating Procedures were not followed, and has today informed Dave Smith that it has terminated its contract of services with him. Dave Smith will no longer act as a judge at British racecourses, but BHA acknowledges his contribution and service over the last 13 years.
The fact that he took all of 40 seconds to call a dead heat, which was later found to be incorrect is absolute gross misconduct, when large sums of money and the reputation of racing as a whole is at stake. he got what he deserves and it was the right action that needed to be taken in my eyes.
A decision taken too quickly is gross misconduct? It took a HD image to decipher that he was wrong. He doesn't have access to that so isn't it feasible that he made an honest decision in good faith that turned out to be incorrect that has subsequently been overturned by using far more advanced technology not available to him at the time of calling the result. The parties involved, I.e the owners, trainers and jockeys, hadn't received their prize money by the time of the reversal so no financial issues have been raised with the immediate stakeholders.
Referee's in other sports make wrong decisions regularly but don't get all this nonsense about the 'reputation of the sport' thrown in their direction. What part of racings reputation, exactly, has been dented following the events of the last few days? Error made. Error corrected. In my view, racings reputation is as badly impacted by erroneously dismissing a long serving and highly experienced figure as it is by that figure making one error. Two wrongs do not make a right.
because he didn't follow protocol and brought the sport into question. If that isn't a sacking then I don't know what is
If it's not his first time then that's a different matter. I really don't buy into the bringing the sport into question point.
As far as i know, he had the high definition image to judge the result from. Where does it say he only had the low definition image? What reason could he possibly have had to make the call so quickly? Knowing people have placed money on these horses in good faith? And the stakeholders may well have been out of pocket if there wasn't an uproar and the result wouldn't of been looked at.
40 seconds is fairly standard in my experience for a photo. If he thought he had got it right and it took 40 seconds then that's reasonable. Are you insinuating he was acting in bad faith? Of course that's possible but unlikely and it's unthinkable the BHA wouldn't conduct a more strenuous investigation if one of heir judges had been cheating in any way if they had. Any indication that was the case. Especially as that is much more likely to ruin racings reputation. The owners/trainer can appeal a decision I believe so they'd have had the chance to appeal uproar or not. I've read from numerous sources on twitter he only had the SD version. If that's wrong then that's another reason to criticise him but every snap I've ever seen has been SD only so it's believable.
Trial by Internet forum, I love it. "Your honour, the man is obviously a complete twat with previous. I read it on Facebook" "Guilty. Hang him"
Im pretty sure they have the high definition photo's to judge from. BHA only put up the low definition imagines on their website which is why they are the only ones people see. Clearly 40 seconds wasn't long enough to judge or he wouldn't of got it wrong...
And i wasn't trying to suggest he was up to anything sinister, just that he has had to little respect for the job he was paid to do.
This can hardly be considered trial by social media since the BHA have already been the judge (no pun intended), the jury and the executioner. There does not appear to be any question that Mr Smith got it wrong and he may have failed to follow procedure; but summary dismissal does look quiet harsh and might end up being challenged legally. A few weeks ago in the Super League, Hull FC won a game against their cross-city rivals Hull KR when the video official (referee Steve Ganson) failed to spot that the winning try was scored by a player who was clearly offside. Mr Ganson still has a job. He made a mistake, which he subsequently admitted, but good officials are not easily replaced so he stays. Hull KR should have got a point for a draw but the 22-16 result saw Hull FC get two points. How many incorrect judgements has Mr Smith made in his thirteen year career? If a jockey drops his hands and gets beaten, he gets a ban not the sack. I bet most Premier League linesmen make more bad offside decisions in a season but only have to put up with Alan Hansen mauling them on MOTD.
QM that decision was clearly a correct decision I've not seen the finish or the photo but I do feel a sacking is harsh, surely a severe reprimand would have been suffice
I had a lovely email from Bet365 telling me that the horse was now being settled as a winner.............shame I had it in a double with Alpine Mysteries who had been beaten a short head........idiots!
Which decision, cityhull? I am going to assume from your name that you are a Hull FC fan. As a neutral who saw the game and told two Hull KR fans that it would be chalked off as it was clearly offside only for Ganson to get it wrong, I am just glad that I did not have anything riding on the game! As for the photo finish, I do not know the procedure that Mr Smith did not follow, but I will speculate that in cases where it is extremely tight – like a perceived dead heat – the judge is supposed to look at the high quality enhanced photo rather than the low quality one that would be good enough if the distance was a head or a neck. I have seen the low quality one, it is inconclusive and Mr Smith should not have relied upon it and should have used the enhanced technology that was available to him.
Just tongue in cheek QM, clearly offside but then again 12 months earlier the enemy got an awful decision there way to win the game! In those sports it happens but in racing it is black and white and a clear winner should have been awarded the race
I am sure employment law does not provide for it but a suspension would have been more appropriate just as we have for jockeys who stop riding. I would put the offence in a similar bracket in that both are caused by the person being too casual and thinking their job is done when it's clearly not. Forty seconds would seem about right for your average photo, but should your first instinct be a dead heat then it's your duty to see if it actually is by scrutinizing more closely as you know your job is to separate if at all possible. It is the familiar call from the commentator that if time starts to pass it could be a dead heat as they know this scrutiny is taking place. The judge in question did not afford this result the scrutiny it deserved and in doing so cost punters a lot of money, just as the jockey who stops riding does. Send him home for a month without pay and give him a warning.
He does have previous, for example calling a result to a close finish straight away without asking for a photo. He has a reputation for doing that and getting away with it, because in fairness he usually calls it right. On this occasion he didn't get it right, and has now paid the penalty for his arrogance.
