PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

“The rules are clear that it’s the trainer’s responsibility to prevent horses taking part in our sport with prohibited substances in their system.”

That used to be the principle before the Quinlan Reforms were implemented. It meant that, if no other culprit was  available, the system would automatically blame and penalise the trainer.

The trouble with that approach was that it was designed for headline purposes. Look how we deal with doping! Whenever dope raises its ugly head on the British Turf the trainer pays a colossal price!  What if he or she is innocent? Worry not! The forces of evil look at the headlines created by the penalty imposed and shudder!

In fact the forces of evil look at the headlines and chuckle. They then double up on the skulduggery knowing that someone else is already in the frame to take the rap.

Happily Quinlan has made all the difference in the world.  As I understand it, if a trainer has done everything in his power to prevent doping, the disciplinary panel may not deem it appropriate to penalise him. The National Trainers’ Federation’s recent statement on the subject reminded the authorities and the public that doped horses get disqualified (therefor owners and trainers are punished as things stand). It went on to say that automatically dumping on the trainer is not the way to encourage best practice in the trainer’s domain, which is only one of the several areas in which doping can be attempted.

The post-Quinlan Disciplinary Panels and Appeal Boards were not designed to perform PR jobs, and in the two most recent cases featuring “forbidden substances” they have delivered justice pure and simple. It is the best thing that has happened to British Racing in a very long time. The BHA done good!

SPIN-OFF

While researching the above, I found a BHA press release on another fairly recent case, in which a trainer was fined quite a lot of money when an illicit substance was found in one of his horses, and this was the third of three separate occasions over a four year period on which the same problem had arisen (I may not have got the figures precisely right).  That pattern would surely be a fairly reliable indication of trainer-neglect. If that was the case,  the existing rule would be capable of penalising him/her.

However, I am digressing.

In the press release was a detailed description of the recommendations made by the BHA investigators. Among these was one requiring all stable staff to reveal any medications that they were themselves using, in case that was an avenue through which banned substances could get into the trainer’s yard. At a certain point the question was asked. “On work mornings, do you encourage a number of jockeys to come and ride work?”

“Yes.”

“Are they required to reveal…..?”

“No.”

“If the staff are asked to reveal their chemical intake, why not the visiting jockeys?”

Who asked the question? A Mrs Pitman. If that is Jenny Pitman (trainer of two Grand National and two Cheltenham Gold Cup winners), she is now a volunteer panellist for the BHA. Not just a great trainer, but also a person of great intelligence and sound judgement. The BHA is to be congratulated on signing her up! There is a need for more Jenny Pitmans on its Disciplinary Panels, on its Appeal Boards and on the BHA Board itself.

Why on the BHA Board itself?

Sad to relate, in recent years bad situations have arisen, and attempts to rectify those bad situations have been too slow (or non-existent), which suggests (dare I suggest it?) that the Top Brass of the BHA have been under-performing. One asks oneself “Where lies its weakness?” The answer might be, “Lack of horse-sense, lack of racing experience, or lack of appetite for the demands of leadership”. In it for the beer, perhaps?

Any further insults? Possibly…. Naming no names, would it be fair to make another suggestion?  I suspect that in recent years quite a number of people (talented people, dedicated to the sport, and familiar with all its complexities) have joined the Board, found the experience uncomfortable, and bowed out? Might that not  be the reaction of good people to a set-up that wasn’t pulling its weight?

STARTING

3.35 Ascot 23^rd December 2017.

A really good 17-runner start.  The horses ambled calmly towards the starter, there was plenty of time and opportunity to give every one of them a chance of a fair start, and there was none of the tension and over-heating usually to be found before Rolling Maul starts. Indeed the ITV commentator remarked on the calmness of the proceedings and added, “Perhaps words have been exchanged, after the previous race false-started!” Only 14 runners in the previous race, and problems? Dear me!

There you have  a problem which could have been put right in five minutes six years ago, if the BHA Board had had the necessary expertise among its members or had  sought out that expertise in the racing community.  I remember eventually  suggesting that the BHA should talk to Hugh Barclay, a starter with a lifetime’s experience who was in charge of the perfect start to the 2013 Grand National, but the powers-that-be decided to keep the matter “in house.”  As a result the problem was not  addressed, and  big-field starts are still (six years later) unacceptable as regards fairness, and as regards the stress and risk imposed on the horses. They also continue to devalue the results of prestige races and to bring  the sport into disrepute.

As for the suggestion that the Rolling Maul (the horror element of the present process) results in more races starting punctually, thus increasing betting time in the betting shops, and thereby  increasing Racing’s revenue  from the bookmakers,  it is  complete rubbish. Thirty horses quietly ambling in a big circle nose-to-tail will respond to the starter’s instructions in better order and vastly more promptly than the mass of horseflesh crammed up together and required to jig-jog all over the racecourse in a steaming procession, which is the present “system” of starting big fields.

If Mr Quinlan (who is a lawyer with vast experience of the problems that arise in many sports) were to see what happens at the start of a few of our big-field races I have no doubt that he would condemn it as unfair, unequal and unsafe, and would remind the racing authorities that in sport every contestant is entitled to a quiet atmosphere, an equal chance and a level break at the start of any race. I think he might add that to send a field of horses on its way when half of them cannot see the first obstacle (which is sometimes what happens) is not a good idea.

FINALE

Believe it or not, in spite of my harsh criticisms of some of the less attractive aspects of the sport,  I have a feeling that 2018 is going to be wonderful for British Racing. The quality of the stable staff all over the country is remarkable at a time when money is tight and wages by no means lavish. The same conditions apply to the contribution  of trainers and jockeys, whose lives continue to be dedicated to the pursuit of perfection. There one sees  three levels of excellence working under difficult conditions on raw material provided at enormous expense by breeders and owners who dream a dream, live a dream and only occasionally make that dream come true – because it  isn’t easy. Add to that the enthusiasm of a racing public which is well acquainted with its favourite sport, and you have the ingredients for a veritable feast.

If the participants get  leadership which matches their own contributions, all will be well, and there are signs – positive signs –  that the BHA has committed itself to a programme of improvements, within its own establishment and throughout the industry. The Quinlan reforms to the justice system are just the beginning. With more of the same the future could be not just rosy but rosy-issimus.

HAPPY NEW YEAR