Re. the CORAL CHARGE (Sandown 4th July), the Racing Post reported that:

WIND FIRE ridden by Oisin Murphy “barged through 100 yards out” (finished 2^nd to Waady). SPLIT QUARTZ was “badly bumped 100 yards out” (finished 3rd). STEPPER POINT was “badly bumped 100 yards out” (finished 4th)

Murphy admitted that he had gone for a non-existent gap, and was banned for nine days for “careless riding.”  He didn’t suggest that it was carelessness. He admitted that his plan, though ill-advised, was deliberate.

How can the stewards describe something deliberate as “careless?” I suspect it is something to do with the fact that “careless riding” never warrants disqualification. Why does anybody want to eliminate the possibility of a heavy punishment for a serious and dangerous transgression? I can’t think of a good reason. But the fact is that the prospect of immunity from disqualification encourages daft and dangerous riding.

I am reliably informed that Murphy is an excellent character as well as a fine young jockey. So his behaviour in this case is a prime example of the temptation which the rule book currently dangles before jockeys.

The stewards also ordered the placings to remain unaltered because they could not be satisfied that WIND FIRE improved her placing over STEPPER POINT and SPLIT QUARTZ by barging.

Let’s take it slowly:

WIND FIRE is behind SPLIT QUARTZ and STEPPER POINT.

WIND FIRE barges.

Now she is ahead of the other two.

Stewards, WIND FIRE did indeed improve her placing by barging. So she should have been demoted…..or even disqualified.

In the stewards report they claim that WIND FIRE was going so well that she would have beaten the other two if she had gone round them rather than through them. They could tell what would have happened and that was enough. Therefore the barging was treated as of little consequence. Which is wrong. Deliberate foul riding merits more than a slap on the wrist. Besides, does one really want the outcome of races to be left to the gut feeling of two stipendiary stewards, who are constantly turning a blind eye to seriously dangerous riding for no apparent reason?     

This was the race that caused Xavier Nakkachdji, the French trainer of SPLIT QUARTZ, to write so eloquently in the Racing Post about the unattractive side of British racing, after years of being a fan of the way we do things.

“Over the last few years British racing has begun to look more and more ugly as a result of the way jockeys now seem to ride to win at any cost. There isn’t a jockey in the world who could have threaded a horse through the gap between Spirit Quartz and Stepper Point….  For careless riding Wind Fire’s jockey would have been banned for three weeks or a month in France….. I love having runners in British races, but there is a danger that they will lose their special flavour if they are allowed to descend to the level of a boxing match.”

And so say I.

ATZENI

Goodwood, Wednesday 29th July, 4.20.

Andrea Atzeni rides DABSTER. Within a few strides he has doubts about her action and within a few more strides he decides she is not fit to race, so he hacks her back up the course. Within minutes he has been banned for 8 days for conduct deemed to be not in the best interests of his mount.

One imagines that it is the report of the vet which has caused the court martial to convene and convict so promptly. So one looks at the Stewards Report concerning the incident and one finds that the vet had reported that the mare “trotted sound” when he examined her. He had no accusations to lay at the door of the jockey.

Mrs Perret, trainer of Dabster, is quoted the next day as follows: “Thanks to Atzeni looking after her, she wasn’t too bad this morning. He didn’t compromise her safety and deserves a pat on the back, not an 8-day suspension.”

I have for a long time been under the impression that the BHA  “Rules and Discipline” club is overloaded with people who include jockey-bashing among their main interests. If that is paranoia on my part, it is a paranoia of which I am proud, because jockeys are among the elite of the human race in their intelligence, their character, their wit, their integrity and their courage.

I would go further and suggest that some members of the “Rules and Discipline” club  have been spreading poison through  every aspect of British racing which they touch, and I am amazed that the various representative bodies which make up the industry do nothing and say nothing about this.

I know that these bodies are traditionally “divided” and “motivated by self-interest”, but one would have thought that overwhelming disgust might encourage purely temporary cohesion for the  time it would take to condemn the serious damage that is being done to the sport by people at the very heart of its management.

Perhaps the reader should now have another look at the Coral Charge.

Nothing humorous this month. Who can be humorous after reading (or writing) today’s two items?