Falmouth Stakes, Newmarket. 12^th July 2013.

(Group 1, £102,078 to winner, £38,700 to the second)

PART 1

At the 2-furlong marker, Elusive Kate, ridden by Buick, is galloping close to the far rails, with her head turned slightly to her right, towards the rails.  Sky Lantern, ridden by Hughes, is a length behind her, and “one off the rails” (i.e. not directly behind the leader).  These are two of the best fillies in the world, ridden by two of the finest jockeys. The other two runners play no part in the action.

Buick gave Elusive Kate the signal to go faster, and at the same time Hughes, on Sky Lantern, asked his mount to join Elusive Kate in the lead. Buick’s signal involved a certain amount of elbow movement. As his mount had her head turned slightly to the right, she couldn’t help but notice his right elbow flicking forward repeatedly. That may or may not have been what set her off, but she immediately began to hang to her left, into the space that Sky Lantern was occupying, thereby causing the latter to give way.

Buick picked up his whip in his left hand, and waved it, without making any impression on Elusive Kate, but some on Sky Lantern, who was hit in the face. Thereafter, Buick did nothing to straighten his horse’s deviation, and Sky Lantern was carried across the course to avoid a collision.

Buick could have put his stick down, replaced his left hand on the reins and pulled his mount away from Sky Lantern by pulling on the right-hand rein. But he didn’t. There was not even a suggestion of the right hand being used to persuade the horse to change course.

Was there anything else he could have done? In the current whip rules it says that to correct a horse that is “noticeably hanging” the jockey may hit it down the neck with his whip. Did he do that? No.

At the finish, Elusive Kate was a neck ahead of Sky Lantern, as she had been throughout this incident. The stewards called an inquiry.  They had seen the disadvantage heaped on the second horse over two furlongs by the deviant course followed by the leader, and they had seen the horses cross the finishing line locked together.  In their wisdom they decided that this was a case of careless riding, rather than anything more serious, and, in spite of the impediment inflicted upon Sky Lantern, they confirmed Elusive Kate as the winner. They also banned Buick from riding for three days for “careless riding”, which, in the currency of the day, was a fleabite.

PART 2

The connections of Sky Lantern appealed and the hearing took place in London at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 18^th July. The members of the appeal Board were Hopper Cavendish, Edward Dorrell, and William Barlow, all of whom have vast experience of disciplinary panels and appeal boards.

The panel found that “although Sky Lantern was carried left-handed by Elusive Kate in the final one-and-a-half furlongs, and accidentally struck once by Buick, Hughes did not have to stop riding and his filly did not lose sufficient momentum and ground for the panel to be satisfied that on the balance of probability the interference had improved the placing of Elusive Kate in relation to Sky Lantern.” The panel therefore dismissed the appeal.

Were they all mad – the stewards at Newmarket, and the panellists in London? Here we had a flagrant injustice, viewed by millions and immortalised on film. The perpetrator is rewarded with a vast prize and the victim is hung out to dry. Madness, surely?

Nay, No, Never! This was not madness. This was simply the spectacular result of major flaws in the rules.

In the Rules of Racing we find the following (which I have paraphrased): “54.6.2. 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.”

Elusive Kate was a neck in front of Sky Lantern throughout the period during which she was impeding Sky Lantern, and that was how they finished. As long as she stayed in front, nobody could say that Elusive Kate had “improved her position”. Was that why Buick had his foot on the accelerator and showed no interest in straightening his course? Good jockeys know the rules, and another rule requires him to do his best to achieve the best possible position at the winning post. He may well have known that, if he stayed in front, and nothing untoward occurred before the winning post was reached, rule 54.6.2 would reward him  a thousandfold for behaviour that, to the layman, appeared  grossly improper. Rule 54.6.2 is the reason why the Newmarket stewards confirmed that Elusive Kate was the winner. It is also the reason why the panel in London threw out the appeal.

Further relevant material is to be found in the BHA’s Guide to Penalties and Procedures. On Page 17 we have “Guiding Principles in relation to Interference.”  The third of these declares that “the benefit of the doubt must go to the horse which finishes in front.” Some mistake, surely? More often than not the “horse that finishes in front” is the guilty party, as was the case in the Falmouth Stakes.

I cannot believe that there is any comparable situation in human activity, sporting or otherwise, where the rule-breaker’s right to preferential treatment is actually enshrined in the rule book, and where the benefit of the doubt is allotted by order of the powers-that-be to the offender rather than to the victim of the offence.

The panel’s final act was to decide that the appellants should forfeit the £500 pounds lodged as required by the regulations. The panel was indicating that, in its opinion, the appeal had been frivolous. Cheap shots don’t come much cheaper.

If this appeal was frivolous, racing could do with more of the same. Thanks to the panel we learned that racing’s judiciary will implement, without question or reservation, any craziness that has found its way into their rule book. It was left to the “frivolous” appellants to expose to the light of day just how ignorant, how misguided and how harmful that craziness can be.

Postscript

I have been very remiss in  failing to mention the Eclipse Stakes at Sandown on 6th July. In that case extremely violent interference in the last fifty yards was inflicted by Al Kazeem on his only serious challenger, Mukhadram, as a result of which the latter only finished fourth.

Al Kazeem was allowed to keep the race on the basis of exactly the same formulae in the Rules of Racing as were to feature so significantly in the case of the Falmouth Stakes six days later. Within a week two Group One Championship races have been marred by inappropriate results based on inexcusable flaws in the book of rules. Is that acceptable?