SIMPLE VERSE AND BONDI BEACH

St Leger disqualification

Donec’s only written comment in the run-up to the appeal was to express relief at not having to adjudicate. It was a difficult one, and the final judgement (that Simple Verse should be reinstated as the winner) was probably correct. 

Race-fixing not for the BHA

However, in the long term the same problems that complicated the St Leger will continue to arise in Britain, thanks to the BHA itself.  Apparently that august body “wants the best horses to win the races.” (The words are those of BHA’s Jamie Stier, in conversation with Nick Luck of Channel 4 Racing, a couple of years ago. I wonder if the videotape survives?)

Wanting the best horses to win is an admirable aspiration, but must not be allowed to interfere with the BHA’s duty to provide a framework of rules that are impartial and objective and treat all competitors the same. It is quite wrong for authorities to give preferential treatment to their idea of “better” horses.

One of the principles on which those rules must rest is the requirement that all competitors must stay within the rules, and must be punished if they don’t, irrespective of any “perceived” difference in ability.

Consequently, a certain mantra must be removed from the Rule Book – the one which states “after a case of interference we give the benefit of the doubt to the one that finishes ahead.” This lunacy is to be found in BHA Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2015, page 17, “c” of Guiding Principles). Irrespective of a talent for hit-and-run, the horse/jockey combination which interferes must pay the price.

It is the application of this weird “benefit of the doubt” that has encouraged jockeys to ride improperly and dangerously, a state of affairs that is continually bringing British Racing into disrepute.  Did the Queen enjoy seeing her horse Dartmouth barging its way through two opponents on its way to victory at Goodwood on August 1^st? Was it not obvious that on that occasion jockey Olivier Peslier adopted strong-arm tactics (“forced way through” according to the Racing Post) only because he knew he would get away with it in Britain, and only in Britain? It is also obvious that Atzeni’s “barge” on Simple Verse in the St Leger would not have happened were it not for the fact that BHA rules and their interpretation by the authorities have for the last few years been positively encouraging improper riding in the circumstances in which Atzeni found himself.

Next case: BHA Guide to Procedures and Penalties, p.16, small print (paraphrase): If a horse interferes with another horse, but does not thereby improve its placing in relation to the sufferer, “the placings shall not be altered.”

Totally wrong. Each of such cases should be judged on its merits. It was this particular “principle” which was responsible for one of the most notorious cases of injustice and improper riding, when Elusive Kate “won” the Falmouth Stakes 2013 after carrying Sky Lantern halfway across Cambridgeshire – with Elusive Kate’s head in front, and her jockey doing nothing to straighten her up. All that the stewards took into consideration was the fact that she stayed ahead. Why? Because of those six inappropriate words in the BHA guide.

It will be interesting to see how the Americans handle the Beverly D Stakes enquiry (Secret Gesture demoted for crossing), an enquiry which seems to be taking a long, long time. Race run 15^th August.

 

RUGBY UNION WORLD CUP

Prepare to Shudder 

All Blacks versus Argentina. Argentina make the mistake of scoring a try, and the scorer – perhaps rather rashly – was lying there, head down, face in among the grasses, recovering from his exertions, with the ball safely grounded, when Dan Carter, arriving too late to stop the try, found himself creating violent contact between a bony part of one of his lower limbs and the scorer’s head. The victim was carried off, concussed.

Was Mr Carter cited?  The  commentator dismissed the notion as ridiculous, when one of his colleagues suggested it. However, if one Googled Mr Carter that afternoon, one found a certain number of citations for foul play against his name. He apparently has “history.” Might it not have been appropriate for the TMO (Television Monitoring Officer, an extra referee crouched over a television with access to replays from every angle)… might it not have been appropriate for him to have had a look? Apparently not.

(Postscript. Two days later Google had shrunk the Carter formbook so as to include nothing of a distasteful nature.  Donec is at a loss to know what this signifies. Some sort of immunity for stars of the game?)

Now a Nice Bit

The Japanese beat the Springboks with superb rugby (quality which has not been a frequent spectacle in recent years). One looked forward to their encounter with Scotland (a side vastly inferior to the Springboks on all known form). However it became apparent in the interim that bookmakers were very certain that the Japanese were in for a hiding – and they have a tendency to know about these things.

End of Nice Bit, return to the Gutter

All was revealed within seconds of the first whistle, because it was followed by a torrent of subsequent whistles as the referee penalised the Japanese again and again and again ad infinitum for transgressions which were visible only to the eye of the whistler. It was as if a trainee from the FIFA school of referees had been hired by the International Rugby Board, which in its wisdom might have decreed that further success for the Japanese would propel them in the direction of the rarefied atmosphere of the knock-out stage of the competition, which could do serious harm to the health of impressionable young players. After 40 minutes playing against 16 men the Japanese lost interest and got the hiding which had been prophesied.

After the game presenter John Inverdale commented that the Japanese were penalised more often in the first half of the Scotland game than they had been in the whole of the game against the Springboks. He offered this observation to his panel of puppets (sorry, experts) and not one of them had anything to add.

 

Another Nice Bit

Thank God for horse-racing, which, in spite of serious problems, still manages to come up with reasons to be cheerful.

Let us look forward to the Arc de Triomphe tomorrow, when the French remind us how racing should be regulated, and to Champions Day, when we  are entitled to hope that Ascot will be brilliant and thrilling. Before we have time to get our breath back the Breeders Cup will be upon us, a further reminder from America that the proper management of a racing industry is not beyond the wit of man. Inspirational stuff.

All going well, on Nov 1 or thereabouts British Racing’s leaders can come back down to earth with a bang, and hopefully not just a bang. There is a vacuum that needs to be filled with ideas, energy and determination, because some hard yards lie ahead.

 

SOME HARD YARDS

Donec’s attention has been drawn to the relationship between Racing and the Government since the 1960s.

During that time racing and breeding has made a substantial contribution to the nation’s wealth in terms of employment and the ability to attract foreign investment. Strangely enough the industry’s own financial condition has been at crisis point throughout, and  shows no sign of improvement. One would imagine that this has been a source of concern at Westminster. By no means. The government has consistently treated racing with indifference bordering on contempt, and racing has let the government get away with it.

The fact that this situation has lasted for more than half a century emboldens the Donec board to suggest that the time has come for racing to bestir itself.

We are not experts in industrial relations but we read our history books, and we know that any industry that makes a positive contribution to a nation’s wealth is entitled to one hundred percent support from the government involved. If it doesn’t  get that support it is duty-bound to make a serious nuisance of itself until it gets what it is entitled to.

Donec recommends that racing’s leaders give serious consideration to the possibility of an escalation of the relationship with government in the direction of serious disagreement (“a bare-knuckle fight” in the original version) if there is no sign of government action to help with racing’s most pressing long-term needs. Racing’s leaders might find the very idea of serious disagreement (or  “bare-knuckle fighting”) abhorrent, and the government is probably relying on that abhorrence to keep the industry on its knees. It would be a sound call, because over recent decades racing has developed a tradition of division below and weakness on top, which has allowed the government to get away with its complete lack of concern.

But if the present leaders  of the BHA (fresh, young-ish, perhaps inspirational and possibly brave as lions) were to change all that, there is a game to be played that is certainly winnable, and simply must be won. Alternative – further decline.

Best wishes.

Donec.

P.S. We notice that before the end of October there will be racing at Cheltenham and Aintree. We regret to inform you that if big fields assemble for some of the more important races starts are unlikely to be fair, as the BHA continues to maintain full confidence in a system which has consistently proved unsatisfactory.