GRUMBLES

Raul da Silva helps a problem horse enter the stalls peacefully and gets penalised. That’s what happens when the people calling the shots know nothing about horse management and very little about racing. That is also the reason why inexperienced jockeys are punished for “not trying” when in fact they have simply mistimed their challenges. Racing’s disciplinarians are convinced that life is a constant battle against criminals most of whom do not in fact exist.

Remember the warm embrace in which an irate Daryl Jacob clasped an amateur jockey who had taken a course that made him and his horse a danger to all around him? “Well done!” says the horseman, referring to the warm embrace. “He’s broken a rule!” says the wretched disciplinarian. “He must be criminalised on TV and hauled before a tribunal!”

Talking of mistimed challenges being mistaken for “not trying”, your average big-field NH race is started in the processional formation that “authority” is so fond of, and the rearmost group will be fifteen or more lengths behind the leaders. This gives owners and trainers every opportunity to give their horses an easy race, if they so wish, and to get away with it. Why should a horse that is penalised 30/40 yards by the starting formation be asked to exert itself?

A level break (a proper start) is not just fair to all the runners; it also allows the stewards to see that every horse in the field starts at roughly the same place and runs roughly the same distance.  Given video evidence as well as horse sense, this makes recognising genuine non-triers much easier. But you wouldn’t expect the Muppets who control the starters to know that.

Talking of starting, the 1.50 at Newbury last Saturday only had 12 runners but the starter still managed to let them go when they were in “line ahead” formation – 15/20 lengths from front to back. The field took approx four seconds to negotiate the first hurdle, which generally means 25 lengths between first and last. Is that desirable? The Ladbroke (feature race of the day) false- started. So what’s new?

ITV

Another sighting of TV goddess Mark 2. The other day a smart young trainer frustrated her by coming out of his saddling-up box so as to have the inevitable conversation outside, where she couldn’t make a nuisance of herself. She was clearly dissatisfied with this treatment, so after the pointless exchanges she ducked under his arm and was to be found cheek by jowl with the horse and lecturing the worldwide viewing public on the subject of bits, bridles and nosebands.

Might I suggest that ITV locks up its goddesses at saddling time and simply points a camera at the process, with a commentary from Luke Harvey who knows exactly what is going on and can explain the process properly for the benefit of the viewers?  Distracting trainers who are trying to concentrate on the most important aspect of their job at the races is not part of ITV’s remit.

LITERATURE

The other day I read an article in the Racing Post which I thought was as beautiful a bit of sporting literature as I had ever come across. It was by  Rodney Masters and it told of a meeting between him and John Francome. I will say no more. First published in the Racing Post on Sept 23 2013, it reappeared in that fine newspaper on 23 Nov 2017.  Superbly crafted and beautifully constructed, it deserves to be hand-written on vellum and adorned with illuminated Capitals by Benedictine monks. Needless to say, the two subjects of this tour de force deserve as much respect as does the writer. Can I buy a book of Mr Masters’ articles?

JUSTICE

The Hobbs case (one of his horses failed a drugs test) is interesting, if only because in 2016 Nick Rust  (CEO of the British Horseracing Authority) spent much time and money trying to improve the way disciplinary panels are managed, in the hope of raising the standard of the justice they deliver, which at that time was very low indeed. Mr Rust asked Christopher Quinlan QC to produce a report and make recommendations and this he did. His recommendations were accepted by the BHA and have now been implemented.

The vital element of the reforms was as follows: previously the selection of disciplinary panellists and Appeal Board members was in the hands of the prosecution. Not a good idea, decided Quinlan, and a system was created whereby the panellists would be selected by an independent body.

It was a Quinlan-model disciplinary panel the dealt with the Hobbs case. It  disqualified his horse but did not penalise the trainer because the rules say that the trainer will not be penalised if there is no evidence indicating how a banned substance got into a horse, and if the trainer has done everything in his power to prevent such a thing happening.

That wasn’t good enough for Mr Jamie Stier, a senior executive of the BHA with a long history in terms of racing justice. He appealed against the decision on the grounds that a) the trainer could only earn exemption from penalty if he could identify the origin of the banned substance (a fatuous suggestion, clearly 99.9% impossible), and on the grounds that b) the BHA’s anti-doping regime would be in tatters if trainers did not pay a hefty fine or lose their licences every time a banned substance was found in a horse, even if the trainer was innocent and had done everything possible to prevent banned substances getting into his horses.

Stier appealed and the Appeal Board (once again a Quinlan model) rejected his plea, because the rules do not support his argument. Stier’s response? He instantly indicated that the BHA must change the rules before British Racing sinks beneath an ocean of forbidden substances. He is clearly not comfortable with justice as per the 2016 reforms, and would like to spread that discomfort.

The National Trainers Federation issued a defence of the rules as they stand, followed by a second statement saying that that the NTF would “strongly discourage” the BHA from changing those rules.

That is the state of play, as I understand it.

If Mr Stier asks the Board of the BHA for the rule-change which will allow him to punish the innocent, I would expect to discover that CEO Nick Rust is joyfully and  inextricably wedded to his Quinlan Reform Bill.

We live in interesting times.

Christmas Cheers to virtually everybody! And particularly to Nick Rust CEO and Christopher Quinlan QC

ADVERT

BETWEEN THE STIRRUP AND THE GROUND

by Andrew Simpson

Author, long long ago, of “Rebecca the Lurcher” and “Summer Pudding.”