Dear Mr Stier,

During your discussion with Nick Luck on Channel 4 television in July (or was it early August?), you explained your belief that the Rules of Racing concerning “Interference” should be interpreted in such a way as to enable the “best” horse in a race to win it. This philosophy swims against a tide that has underpinned all sport since the Flood. The message which that tide conveys is as follows: if a contestant breaks the rules, he cannot win the race, however superior to his opponents he may be. When Usain Bolt false-started in the world championship 100-metre final of 2011, he was disqualified. He didn’t complain, and the crowd didn’t riot.

The last thing the public as well as the participants want is for administrators to lace the rules and regulations with “ifs and buts” which tilt the odds in favour of rule-breakers simply because those administrators have taken a view about the quality of the various competitors.

I understand that you have been involved in the debate on this subject for a number of years through your committee work for the IFHA (International Federation of Horseracing Authorities). I take comfort from the fact that there has not been a rush to sign up to your point of view.

You said in that interview that “Australasia” was moving in the same direction as yourself. I don’t think that is so. For example, Australian Rule 136 deals with Interference. Part 1 does not hesitate to advocate the disqualification option again and again, if appropriate, and Part 2 is equally positive about demotion, if appropriate. I found nothing in the Australian Rules which resembles the BHA Rule Book’s attempts to grant improper (in my view) advantages to “better” horses.  No sign of Rule 54.6.2 (paraphrased as follows):  If the stewards are not satisfied that interference improved the placing of the horse responsible for the interference, they must…order that the placings remain unaltered. Likewise no sign of the third among the BHA’s “Guiding Principles in relation to Interference,” which declares that “the benefit of the doubt must go to the horse which finishes in front.”

In practice these directives will almost always turn out to favour the aggressor rather than the victim of aggression. Certainly that was the case with the Eclipse Stakes and the Falmouth, the two races which have drawn the attention of so many towards Interference and the rules.

I was pleased to discover that, when the French authorities were asked to consider adopting a less robust (and less even-handed) attitude towards Interference, they responded to the IFHA with an unambiguous “Non!”

Mike de Kock’s reaction to the demotion of his horse The Apache in the Arlington Million was a perfect example of the proper attitude (in my opinion) towards rules in sport. (“The second horse did get hampered by The Apache, and had we got beat like that I would have been aggrieved. I still think that, had he gone straight, The Apache would have won. It’s painful, but that’s the game.”) He knew the rules, he knew his horse was guilty, and in spite of his conviction that Apache was the best horse on the day he took his punishment without complaining.

There we have a South African of high repute, currently based at Newmarket, England, and reacting to a drama in a top-class race in North America. I cannot help but feel that his reaction encapsulates the world view of what is right and proper in the justice system of any sport. In that context, I suggest that the granting of exceptional immunities to “special” horses, at the discretion of the governing body, is a serious mistake, and should be discontinued.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Simpson.