Stewarding

Paul Struthers, the Chief Executive of the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA), recently wrote the following in the Racing Post, in the debate concerning the cooperation (or lack of same) between the Racecourse Stewards and the Independent Judiciary.

I paraphrase: “As regards penalties incurred by jockeys for rule-breaking on the racecourse, there are approximately 800 to 1000 suspensions a year. We get asked by our members to look at about 200 cases with a view to appealing to the Independent Judiciary, and we take forward about 10.”

Let’s call it a total of 800 cases, for argument’s sake. The PJA is asked to look into about 200 on behalf of the jockeys involved. What about the other 600? In those cases the judgement of the Racecourse Stewards is accepted and endorsed.

Of the 200 that the PJA is asked to look into by jockeys, the PJA takes forward to appeal about 10. What happens to the other 190? In those cases the judgement of the Racecourse Stewards is accepted and endorsed.

So out of 800 cases, the work of the Racecourse Stewards is accepted and endorsed by the PJA in 790 instances. I am not a mathematician, but I cannot think of any way that the PJA could pay a more generous compliment to the Racecourse Stewards for their contribution to justice.

Considering the care the PJA takes to limit the number of occasions when it supports an appeal, no one should be surprised to find that a substantial number of those appeals are successful. For the same reason nobody should be surprised to find that as yet the Independent  Judiciary has found no reason to increase a penalty, but if ever that becomes appropriate I have no doubt that the Judiciary will do its duty.

Everybody happy? No way! A voice close to the Racecourse Stewards goes into print to complain that they are disappointed by the number of Stewards’ racecourse decisions that are overturned by the Independent Judiciary.

This is madness, as the PJA figures suggest, but it is no joking matter. For 15 years under a previous BHA disciplinary chief the justice system was a disgrace. It was in order to improve the quality of justice from zero to something respectable that the Independent Judiciary was created. “A breath of fresh air” was how one good judge described the new arrangement. I for one thought that the change was firmly established when the man responsible for what was a disaster area left the BHA. Clearly I was wrong.

With respect, I refer Annamarie Phelps (BHA Chairperson) and Julie Harrington (Chief Executive) to the threat that hangs over one of British Racing’s Crown Jewels. I use the term Crown Jewels advisedly. Any community, any industry that subscribes to a justice system based on integrity and fair play enjoys the benefit of a priceless asset.

It may be that criticism of something which is in perfect working order is coming from a source that is not qualified to make a judgement.

Any good news this last month?

Certainly: the fairy tale of  Snow Lantern’s  victory in the Group One Falmouth Stakes at Newmarket, eight years after her dam Sky Lantern was beaten a neck by Elusive Kate in the same race. That victory (as many will recall) was achieved as follows:

At the 2-furlong marker, Elusive Kate, ridden by Buick, is in the lead, galloping close to the far rails.  Sky Lantern (Richard Hughes) is a length behind her, and “one off the rails” (i.e. not directly behind the leader).  These were 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 asked Elusive Kate to accelerate with two furlongs to run, and at the same time Hughes, on Sky Lantern, asked his mount to join Elusive Kate in the lead. Elusive Kate immediately began to hang to her left, into the space that Sky Lantern was beginning to occupy, thereby causing the latter to go left-handed under the pressure.

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

At the finish, Elusive Kate was still a neck ahead of Sky Lantern, as she had been throughout this incident. The stewards called an inquiry and decided that this was a case of careless riding by Buick, rather than anything more serious. In spite of the difficulties Sky Lantern had endured 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.

The connections of Sky Lantern appealed and the hearing took place in London on 18^th July 2013.  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, jockey Hughes did not have to stop riding and his filly did not lose sufficient momentum and ground for the panel to be satisfied that 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?

This was not madness. This was simply the spectacular result of a major flaw in the rules.

The  Rules at that time included : “ 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.”

It made no sense – why should remaining ahead entitle a guilty horse to exemption from condign punishment for criminal activity? Elusive Kate was a neck in front of Sky Lantern throughout the period during which she was impeding her challenger, and that was how they finished.

A fatuous rule was the reason why the Newmarket stewards confirmed Elusive Kate as the winner. It was also the reason why the panel in London threw out the appeal.

Fast forward to today:

Wasn’t it appropriate that eight years later a grey daughter of Sky Lantern won the Falmouth?   The evidence suggests that the Almighty watches ITV Racing and is well pleased when justice is done.

However the BHA should note the fact that the worthless principle that led to Elusive Kate’s “victory” is still in the Rules, under Guiding Principles that stewards are obliged to follow when dealing with Interference,  and is still dangerous rubbish.

I have a feeling that those rules and principles were meddled with by an idiot at some stage in the last fifteen years (I do not name him!) That section needs the attention of Mr Christopher Quinlan (who composed and designed the Independent Judiciary) to make it fit for purpose. 

Jason Watson

I was delighted to see that young Mr Watson rode a treble of winners at Doncaster on Saturday. I have never met him or spoken to him, but have taken an interest since watching him ride his first big winner – the Stewards Cup at Goodwood in 2018. He was champion apprentice in 2018, producing much the same standard of performance as had Oisin Murphy the previous year. His association with Beckhampton turned out to be a major mistake, but he came out of it (last week),  uncomplaining (as far as I know) and riding as well as ever. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that he has turned a very unpleasant eighteen months into a valuable learning curve. He has my total support and my best wishes.

Talking of which, I have always been aware that the Kingsclere Apprentice School has produced nothing but excellence over many years, and I am now beginning to notice how many good young jockeys and jockettes have emerged from other establishments. I suspect that if I asked a few questions I would find that the Newmarket Jockey School (which I helped to build) and the Jockey Coach arrangements (plus pony racing, about which I know nothing ) have played a big part in the emergence of so many good young riders. It is wonderful to behold….

In my day it was very different. Dripping mucksacks, very little food, mucking out six, riding out three or four, and “You’ll nae watch the telly!” if one got on the wrong side of the resident caterers. After three weeks of hell, the trainer  (GB Balding) shouted at me as I pulled up after being run away with by a succession of large hairy monsters. “Tomorrow you go to Hackwood Park and ride a horse in the Open.”

Horse, Open, Hackwood Park! It meant nothing to me, but I just said “Yessir, yessir, yessir!” as one did in those days.

Next day, there we were, me and a horse and the wonderful Buddy Sayers (now long gone to his Maker),  at Hackwood Park, lining up in a highly competitive Open. I’d never seen a fence, let alone jumped one.

Wheee! Off you go and off we went. I find I am leading the field and aimed him at the middle of this enormous hedge thing. At a certain point horse decides to hang left to jump the fence just inside the wing. I was happy; he obviously knew what he was doing, which I didn’t. However there were roars of protest from behind as we drifted across the front of the  opposition when they were in the dangerous area of the last three strides. After the fence I thought fit to go back to the middle of the track. It was a mistake. More drift and more screams.

I think at some stage the penny dropped: horse wanted to go the shortest way round, even if I didn’t. So I complied. It worked, in that a brooding and revengeful silence affected my critics for the rest of the trip.

Three times round Hackwood in front on my own. Then two gallant competitors sailed past my gallant competitor, and that’s how we finished. The partnership was intact, and we were in the money.  I was elated. As I slid to the ground I felt as weak as a kitten, and likely to vomit. Job done. It is very difficult to feel weak and nauseous and elated all at the same time.

(To be continued…..Covid permitting)