On Friday 5^th May 2017, 26 jockeys involved in the FALSE START at the beginning of April’s Grand National were handed one-day bans by a British Horseracing Authority disciplinary panel.

“The 26 jockeys were charged because they did not take a turn when requested by the starter, which is in contravention to rules agreed… three years ago,” said BHA spokesman Robin Mounsey (I paraphrase.). “Since the new procedures were implemented… the frequency of false starts has decreased significantly.”

Three years previously, in October 2014, there had a meeting between the BHA, the Professional Jockeys’ Association, and representatives of the Cheltenham and Aintree authorities.

They conferred because there was a problem, and the problem was the process, imposed by the BHA, of forming large fields of steeplechasers (17 or more runners)  into close-packed processions consisting of several rows (or ranks), one behind the other. These close-packed rows are then required to rotate in a sequence of small circles while waiting for start-time.

This phenomenon is known as the Rolling Maul and is unusual.

Whereas it has been universally acknowledged throughout the racing world that the atmosphere at the start of races should be as calm and as stress-free as possible, the BHA in its wisdom has at some stage allowed the development of a situation in which the start of big-field races (which includes many of the most prestigious in the jumping calendar) is preceded by a process that is unfair, seriously upsetting for horses and riders, and dangerous.

It is unfair because those at the back of the procession have further to run than those at the front. It is upsetting because the mass rotation of a large number of close-packed horses is so uncomfortable for all concerned that since the world began it has never previously been employed by any equestrian community. It is dangerous because “close-packed” increases the chance of horses kicking each other. In addition on many occasions half the field do not get a proper view of the first obstacle until too late. Their vision is obscured by the mass of horses ahead of them.

After the meeting Paul Struthers (of the Professional Jockeys  Association) informed his jockeys that agreement had been reached for the rotating procedure to be discontinued, That agreement was strangely short-lived. The BHA made no effort whatsoever to do away with the root cause of the problem, and the Rolling Maul is still as unfair, upsetting and dangerous as it ever was. The review might just as well not have happened.

So on Friday 5th of May 2017 we had BHA spokesman Mounsey telling the world how pleased the BHA was with the improvement in starting that has been achieved in the previo0us three years. This revelation comes in the immediate aftermath of a colossal FALSE START involving the greatest steeplechase in the world.

Mr Mounsey has plenty of cheek. So has the BHA. Let’s have a look at what the Donec Archive reveals about the rights and wrongs of big-field starting since the October 2014 Review (the truth this time ):

Donec 1^st  NOVEMBER 2014,

November 1, 12.55 Wetherby, 17 runners.

The Maul came on to the track from the right-hand in-field where it had been rotating, and the procession turned towards the tapes. Up went the starter’s flag (as per the new edicts; the field was now under starter’s orders). Did the new system allow for the procession to turn into a line abreast (as in an ‘even break’ scenario)? No way! When the last rank was on the track, far behind the leaders, the flag was lowered, the tapes rose and the race began.

By the time the field was halfway to the first hurdle there was twenty lengths between first and last. NOT A FALSE START, but what chance of a fair result after such an unfair start?

Donec 31 MARCH 2015

Cheltenham 2015 yielded at least 4 FALSE STARTS and persuaded our correspondent to repeat his warning against the Rolling Maul in terms which justify repetition. I paraphrase:

“If one is stupid enough, it is arguable that the Rolling Maul is tolerable, as long as the final walk towards the starting tape is orchestrated to allow the field to calm down. However, normal intelligence would suggest that if one is going to calm things down at that late stage, why on earth did one stir them up in the first place?” Good question. So far, no answer, not even from the garrulous Mounsey.

Donec 30 APRIL 2015

3.50 Sandown, 25^th April (?), the Bet365 Gold Cup, 20 runners. At 3.49 one looked towards the start, and what did one see?  Twenty over-excited horses whizzing round at high-speed  –  then nineteen sent on their way and one of the favourites left at the post.

The BHA’s stipendiary stewards decided that the start had been perfect and the abandoned horse had been abandoned because it was naughty and through no fault of the system.

Interestingly, a number of bookmakers refunded money bet on the abandoned horse. That gesture, made by a profession that is not profligate with its money, tells one that these sportsmen thought that the debacle was in fact a starting cock-up. DONEC AGREES.

If you are going to whizz the field round and then let it go like firing a slingshot, there is no support system for horses that need a bit of help.

Before the Philistines reinvented  the system, an important part of the starter’s job (going back 200 years) was seeing that all the runners got at least the possibility of a fair break. Not any more apparently. 

Donec end of DECEMBER  2015

Ladbroke Hurdle, Ascot, 21 runners.

As the field advanced towards the tapes, C4 TV’s Mick Fitzgerald was commenting on the length of the “procession”, on the advantage of being in the front two ranks, on the difficulty that would face those at the back when they tried to get into contention.

The replays suggested that there were 20 lengths between first and last at the first hurdle and 30 as the field landed over the second – entirely due to the fact that a procession guarantees unfairness, and a big-field procession guarantees gross unfairness.. How will even bigger fields cope (Cheltenham)?

Donec end of MARCH  2016

At least FOUR FALSE STARTS at the Cheltenham Festival 2016.   The same as in 2015. Any sign of enlightenment on the part of the BHA? Quite the opposite. The suggestion that the Rolling Maul should be consigned to the dustbin is like a RED RAG to a bull as far as the “we never make mistakes” brigade is concerned.

Donec  re. 4th DECEMBER 2016

1.35 AINTREE (3/12/16) Becher Chase. 22 horses crammed together, jogging and trotting round in circles and getting more and more stressed. Field heads for the starting gate and grinds to a halt. FALSE START.

AFTER THE RE-START TWO FELL AT THE FIRST, TWO MORE AT THE SECOND. For five years Donec among others has been telling the BHA that improper starting procedures distract horses and cause falls at the early obstacles, because the horses cannot see what lies ahead. How many fallers at the early obstacles must there be  before the penny drops? 

Donec re. CHELTENHAM FESTIVAL 2017

Tuesday 14th: No problems.

Wednesday 15th: the 2.10 and the 5.30 were FALSE STARTS. So was the 3.30 although the official report enigmatically attributed the incident to “Mechanical malfunction.” THREE FALSE STARTS

Thursday 16^th: no problems.

Friday 17^th: the 1.20 was another “Mechanical” FALSE START.

 

 Donec re.  8thAPRIL 2017 GRAND NATIONAL:  A FALSE START OF EPIC PROPORTIONS.

After which, what did sweet-talking spokesman Mounsey say?

.”Since the new procedures were implemented three years ago….the frequency of false starts has decreased significantly.”

Is that true? No, it isn’t.

Donec only examines a tiny proportion of the jump races that are run each year. It picks its races in advance, selecting for scrutiny only those with big fields (17 and over).

In our analysis, approximately 40 races were put under the microscope and 17 FALSE STARTS were identified (approx. 42.5 percent), plus three instances where the length of the “processions” meant that the results of the races were unlikely to bear any relation to the comparative merits of the participants. It must be understood that the failure of most of the field to stay in touch with the leaders was not lack of speed or poor jockeyship. In all the cases the loss of position was imposed on the runners by the Rolling Maul before the race even started. Is that clear?

Over three years, half the races examined were seriously affected by the Rolling Maul. Of course the bold Mounsey will claim that the other half of the sample passed the test with flying colours. Sorry, sunshine, that is not the case. In virtually every case that made up the other half of the sample the runners were boiling like kettles and the starters were using every trick in the book to send them on their way before they went mad.

THE FUTURE (looks black)

If the BHA continues to sanction the Rolling Maul, it will be endorsing and imposing a process that can hardly be described as horse-friendly. If problems arise on that score, even Mounsey will find it difficult to provide his masters with reasons to be cheerful.