Los Angeles herald., 1906-03-02
Mccafferty Suspended

Mccafferty Suspended
J. ]. McCafferty was also suspended
as trainer for one year on charges
made by Durnell that McCafferty had
"doped" The Huguenot before the
race won by this horse on February
Is.
On this day, and after The Hugue-
not mad performed in his usual con-
sistent form by winning a race at
one mile and fifty yards in half
second slower time than he won at
the same distance January 8, Durnell
bid up and bought him and declared
to the judges that the horse was
"doped" and that he had bought the
horse for the especial purpose of prov
ing it, and would have him killed and
his stomach examined by veterinarles.
Judge Hamilton refused to permit
the slaughter of The Huguenot, but
sent the track veterinary to examine
the horse with two other veterinaries
said to have been secured by Durnell.
Their report was that the horse
showed evidences of having been given
stimulating drugs, so says rumor, as
the official report has not been given
publicity, and the judges acted upon
this report.
In defense, McCafferty is said toI
have filed affidavits made by himself
did not administer any stimulants to
The Huguenot or order that it be done
and that he was not at the stable after
o'clock on this day, being at the
grandstand from 1 o'clock until after
the last race.
McCafferty is trainer-manage for
the horses belonging to j. A. Wern-
berg, a wealthy and prominent attor-
ney of New York and the order of
e,;1 10 Ttof ole
not affecting the interests OF Wern-
berg.
On the contrary, according to rule
No. 1SS of the Pacific Jockey club, the
horses owned by Durnell are affected
by the ruling against him in the same
degree that it affects him.
Findings inconsistent
The findings of the directors are vir-
tually a whitewash of Brooks, as the
decree exonerates him absolutely from
all blame in any of the specific allega-
tions and the only feature where any
criticism has been heard is in the
numerous excuses offered by the board
for faulty Judgment and attempts at
apologizing for minor acts that really
do not affect the honesty. integrity
or honor of Brooks and in the incon
sistency of the ruling relating to the |
Durbar case as compared with the |
ruling of the judges against McCaf- |
ferty, Wood and W. T. Williams in a
similar case.
Recently the judges handed down
ruling wherein it was decided sub
stantially as follows: that w. 7. Will
liams made a claim upon a horse and
that Fred I. Wood wrote out the claim
Williams with which to pay for the
horse desired to be claimed. 1t was
also proven that the money loaned to
Williams by Wood had been loaned to
Wood by McCafferty. That after the
claim had been made Williams sold
the horse to Wood for $40 advance
over the claiming price and that Wood
sold the horse to McCafferty for $40
less than he had paid for it
The judges assessed a fine of 500
against Williams, $1,000 against Wood
and $1,000 against McCafferty.
In the Durbar case, Brooks guaran-
teed checks held by c. c. McCafferty
and thereby enabled McCafferty to put
in a claim for Durbar, which was af-
terwards declared invalid by the
judges. Brooks is exonerated for his
participation and use of his friendly
offices to McCafferty, while Wood and
]. j. McCafferty are fined $1,000 each
for using their friendly offices and
loaning Williams the money to make
his claim upon a horse. Williams is
also fined for accepting the kindly Of
fees of his friends.
The ruling of the judges may have
been eminently correct and fair and
there are none to gainsay this fact. but
an extension of the penalties to all of
tenders regardless of position or asso-
Citations might not have been consid-
cred inappropriate.
However, i'll the absence of any
knowledge by the public of the testi-
mony offered before the sessions of the
board, the findings are not f1agrantly
open to righteous attack and there are
few who have expressed an opinion
other than of approval or indifference.
Ebony Beaten OFF
fo;r cord -,-,- z.--.,, f.,