DISCIPLINARY

Donec welcomes the announcement by the BHA that the changes to the disciplinary system will ensure the future integrity of that system. Donec is not so happy with Mr Rust’s assertion that “it is essential that the sport’s participants and followers continue to have confidence in our judicial system.” “Continue to have confidence….”?  In recent years those closest to the sport have found racing’s disciplinary system to be a can of worms.  Why not say so?

Perhaps it would also be a good idea to acknowledge the fact that the initiative which has brought about the new order was not the work of the BHA. On the contrary, in 2015 the possibility that “conflict of interests” was corrupting disciplinary panels was raised in BHA circles, and the response from the man in charge (Mr Jamie Stier) was that there was nothing to worry about.

In 2016, however, the BHA set about removing trainer Jim Best from the world of racing by summoning him to answer charges before a disciplinary panel which was clearly far from perfect integritywise.  It was only when Best’s lawyer, Mr Harry Stewart-Moore, pointed the finger at an obvious example of “conflict of interests” that the full horror of the underlying situation was revealed and the racing authorities were prodded into action.

As regards the future, one welcomes any improvements in the disciplinary system, but one is concerned to find that the faces responsible for the can of worms are still dining at racing’s top table.

LEE MOTTERSHEAD of the Racing Post

is spot-on with his comments on the feeble way in which the anti-rough-riding rules are being applied. This has been going on for years and much of it boils down to questionable practices by those who make the rules and those who apply them. At one stage the interpretation of the interference rules encouraged jockeys to bump, bore and barge in their efforts to win races, because of a half-witted philosophy espoused by the man in charge of these things (the same Mr Stier mentioned above) that the rules should favour the “horse that finishes in front”  at the conclusion of any rough-house situation. Complete lunacy, but there it was, and for several years foreign jockeys have come to England knowing that they can get away with tactics here which would not be tolerated anywhere else.

One of the tricks regularly used by the department concerned was based on the difference between “improper” or “dangerous” riding, on the one hand, and “careless” riding, on the other. The rules have somehow been persuaded  to state that “careless riding” cannot incur disqualification, and I have no doubt that stipendiary stewards have been under orders to opt for “careless” whenever possible for a variety of reasons (all of them disgraceful). I have no doubt that this practice is still in operation and Mr Mottershead is quite right to draw attention to it. Racing is dangerous enough without the rule book making it even more so.

MATT CHAPMAN

I am delighted that the Epsom Authority relieved him of his prizegiving role. I do not favour his style, although he is intelligent, and knows his racing. I have had serious reservations about him since he strode alongside Paul Nicholls one day as the trainer was accompanying a winner towards the unsaddling enclosure.   Brandishing a microphone, Chapman proceeded to question him fairly persistently about the likelihood of him sacking his stable jockey (who was not riding the horse they were accompanying). Dear me, I said to myself, this man really has got ideas well above his station. In addition he has a bad voice and the face of a bruiser. How did he ever get into the entertainment business?

More reservations stirred, when he interviewed Mark Johnson at the latter’s yard, and proceeded to make jovial fun of his host, telling him he ran his horses too often and that he knew his runner in the 2000 Guineas had no chance. It became apparent that Mr Chapman doesn’t do jovial at all well, and is comparatively charmless. Conclusion: now that he has been put in his place by Epsom, maybe his employers (who to date have acted as though they are frightened of him) will attempt his rehab. I wouldn’t bother. What is the point of employing a chap to do a job that involves mixing with people, if the chap in question alienates almost everyone he meets almost instantly?

ASCOT 1

I detected a change for the better in Matt’s behaviour at Ascot, and Mark Johnston’s two winners must have given another knock to his overweening self-esteem. I suggest he be given a reprieve, for the time being. (PS This suggestion was written before I had heard of Mr Chapman’s excellent decision to button his lip for Charity!)

Talking about alienation I was shocked (and alienated) to see Miss Cumani (plus microphone) harassing trainers as they were saddling their horses. When one unfortunate victim moved to the off side of his horse, she bleated, “Oh, he’s gone! I’ll follow him round!” And she did. Clearly she doesn’t subscribe to the view that saddling time is a period when the trainer is busy and should be left alone. One would have thought that a trainer’s daughter would know that. Did I not hear mention of a slipped saddle nearly costing jockey Doyle victory on Barney Roy in the St James Palace Stakes? I wonder if there is video footage (CCTV or ITV) of that horse’s time in the saddling boxes. If Miss Cumani can be seen distracting young and impressionable trainer Richard Hannon, the authorities would have her “Bang to rights!” as the saying goes.

ASCOT 2

Down at the start Luke Harvey (ITV) lowers his voice as he describes (for the benefit of TV watchers all over the world) the arrival of the horses. If he exchanges a word with a friendly jockey, it is done quietly. Behind the stalls the runners walk round in a big circle. When the proceedings are delayed because a horse needs to have a shoe removed, reshaped and replaced, the runners don’t mind a bit. They just keep walking. The scene is a picture of complete relaxation, and I am sure that the BHA is proud of the way things are being handled.

It is therefore amazing that the same BHA allows rumpus and ruction, stress and discomfort to be inflicted on runners preparing for big-field jump races, and will not raise a finger to improve a situation that is indefensible, in spite of being reminded of the problem  at regular intervals over several years, and in spite of the fact that rumpus and ruction, as well as upsetting horses and jockeys, also  increase the number of False Starts and have been known to cause casualties at the early obstacles. Something of the sort happens with sickening regularity throughout the jump season, and featured in the start of the Grand National earlier this year. It will continue to feature as long as the BHA fails in its duty.

CEO Nick Rust is currently responsible for a bold endeavour to win a wonderful financial dividend for the racing industry as a result of changes to the Levy system.  Progress is suspended for the moment while the EU publishes the current state of affairs, and will then be delayed for another two months to give objectors to the Rust initiative time to object. This suggests to me that Mr Rust must have time on his hands that could well be devoted to repairing aspects of British racing which are not fit for purpose. He may not be aware of it, but his remit is not confined to matters of finance.

ASCOT 3

The hero of the week wasn’t even present. How I wish I had noted every time a trainer, owner or jockey described the debt they owed to Frankie Dettori; for the advice he had given to the jockeys who replaced him (he is currently recovering from ar arm injury), for the help he had given to the trainers in preparing the horses he was due to ride, and for the wit and wisdom with which he regales owners who have long discovered that in brain and character he is second to none. The man is a giant and we are all lucky to be contemporaneous with him.

ASCOT 4

Lady Aurelia (originally due to be ridden by Frankie) was my pick of the week. Her appearance provided an exhibition of American horsemanship at its best: the pony to the start, the skill of the pony rider, the judgement which had led to the absence of the blinkers, the understanding between horse and jockey, the long rein and the easy stride in the first half of the race, followed by the killer punch in the last furlong. Perfection is not a word I use lightly.  This was it.

I checked up on John R. Velazquez, Lady Aurelia’s jockey. He has won everything, and he rides like it. I am sure Mr Dettori approved.

Talking of which – Lady A’s trainer Wesley Ward was a Champion Apprentice, won 300-plus races and all sorts of accolades in America, rode in Italy and the Far East, and retired at about 21 because of weight problems. Did you know that?  You do now.

CITY RACING

Horse racing is a thing of beauty. The urban jungle is a sewer. To put a thing of beauty into a sewer makes no sense at all. Racing has much to offer. One of its attractions is that it encourages urban man to get out of town and start breathing a better quality of air. Taking horses into town would have the opposite effect on the horses.

What is the point? To get more people interested in racing? Racing has always been dangerous as well as beautiful. Racegoers who are not equipped to deal with the dangers of gambling, for example, should not be encouraged to become addicted to racing, a sport that has ruined the lives of millions over the last three centuries.

Good racing, well-managed, will always attract a certain type of person, and that type of person is few and far between. Only football attracts larger audiences than racing.  End of story. If you try to encourage others, in great numbers, to become regular racegoers, you are asking for trouble. Trouble has already surfaced in various forms at racecourses which spread the net too wide.

Rest assured. “More people” is never going to solve racing’s financial problems.

Were I to meet the man who reversed the decision of Westminster City Council to allow the Oxford Street experiment, I would shake his hand. I have seen images of two of the City Racing “front men.” Both look pleased with themselves and dumb, and mildly embarrassed (already), so maybe this nightmare will turn out to be a false alarm.

LIONS RUGBY

In 1971 the British Lions, playing a quality of rugby that was breathtakingly beautiful and highly effective, crushed world champions New Zealand. This was the masterpiece, the crowning glory of the late great Carwyn James, the only true genius ever to turn his hand to Rugby football. New Zealand has never forgotten the James lesson and the All Blacks have been champions of the world more or less ever since. I venture to suggest that it was as a result of that experience that they found they could beat anybody without having to resort to foul play, which had previously been their weapon of last resort.

(11.27 a.m. Saturday July 1st: Cancel that last sentence: NZ have just lost the second Test of three versus the current Lions, largely because one of their sportsmen tried to euthanize a Lion in an unlawful fashion, and a French referee red-carded him. If more referees would follow suit, the world would be a better place.

Back to the Lions of 1971. Soon after they returned home triumphant, Carwyn James was consigned to the outer darkness by the Welsh rugby hierarchy and Northern Hemisphere rugby fell into a state of almost terminal decay. This spread to the World Rugby leadership, which settled down to thirty years of fiddling with the rules in attempts to reduce the number of stoppages and the need for scrums as the re-start mechanism. They hoped this would make the game more attractive as a spectacle (and thus more lucrative for the governing bodies).

So stupid.

First, the scrum is the process that requires large athletes to take part in the game. Reducing the number of scrums reduces rugby’s right to claim that its appeal is to all shapes and sizes. Second, if the movers and shakers had paid more attention to the ’71 Lions tour, they would have seen that superb scrummaging was the key to the lightning speed with which the ball was transferred from the forwards to the backs, who then ran, passed and scored, which is what “wows” the crowds. It also provides glorious satisfaction for the scrummagers.

So the new regulations have shot themselves in the foot (or feet). They have also produced the most grotesque sight ever seen on any playing field in the world, irrespective of what game is taking place. Seven large men, close-packed and embracing each other almost indecently, trot forward rather slowly and attempt to crush all opposition by sheer weight of numbers. Attached to the rear of this cortege is another large man insecurely linked to the back of the main group by one hand grasping one of the seven jerseys in front of him. This person generally advances with head lowered, as if in shame and hoping for invisibility. Quite right too!

His free hand clasps the ball to his chest. Trundle…trundle…. trundle goes the tractor-and-trailer – very slowly. It is not a pretty sight, but there are occasions when it prevails, crosses the try line and scores.

Question 1: why are the seven men in front of the ball-carrier not deemed “offside” and/or “obstructing”? Because the new regulations have legalised the formation they have adopted, after 200 years of quite rightly penalising it.

Question 2: Why doesn’t one of the opponents nip round the side of the human “turtle” and tackle the ball-carrier? Because the new regulations deem that such an action would be ….guess what…. OFFSIDE!

Deciding Test: next Saturday 8.30 a.m. or thereabouts. Good breakfast entertainment. Lions should lose, but that is no certainty.

Best wishes,

donec