March 10, 2018, Sandown Park:  the Imperial Cup Handicap Hurdle Race.

An extreme example of dangerous riding. The aggressor horse, on its way to winning the race by a neck, bumped the victim horse three times as it shepherded it towards the rails.

The Interference Rules state that any interference that involves one rider pressuring another towards “The Rails” is Dangerous Riding and the horse responsible must be disqualified.  However the Stewards in their wisdom declined to punish the culprit. Later that day they authorised the publication of a “Stewards Report” which made no mention of “The Rails” and reduced three bumps to a single bump, re-writing the story in such a way as to turn potential Grievous Bodily Harm into a case of slap and tickle. “Dangerous” became “Careless” and the rider of the winner received a 3-day ban, which, in the scheme of things, was a slap on the wrist.

The following week, in response to my enquiry, I received an email from the BHA department concerned, confirming the alleged “triviality” of the encounter and attempting to justify the downgrading of its importance.

Make no mistake: the rules were ignored, the facts were replaced by fiction, and a grave injustice was perpetrated.  In additions, these irresponsible machinations could only encourage a return to the dangerous riding which has been such a regrettable feature of British racing in recent years.

July 7, 2018, Sandown Park: Eclipse Stakes.

“Roaring Lion” bumps “Saxon Warrior” towards the rails three times in the last hundred yards with his jockey using his whip in his left hand (the wrong hand, the hand that encourages further interference). The fact that he changed his whip hand the moment his horse passed the post suggests that he knew exactly what he was doing.

.Once again the Stewards declined to punish the culprit, and once again dangerous riding was made more attractive to jockeys. This time the slap on the guilty jockey’s wrist was a 4-day ban. Later that day, they authorised the publication of a “Stewards Report” which re-wrote the story in exactly the same terms as had been used in the case of the Imperial Cup four months earlier.  No “Rails” featured in the sanitised version, nor did the use of the whip in the wrong hand, and the three bumps were reduced to one.

As a result of the stewards’ decisions in these two cases, £490,565 was misappropriated.  That is the total of the prize money paid out to the two “winners” who would have been disqualified if the rules had been enforced.

One would imagine that the Boardroom of the BHA would be incandescent with rage at the disgraceful behaviour of its racecourse disciplinarians, but one would be wrong. Judging by its reaction, it would appear that the Boardroom is perfectly happy with the way racing justice is being administered on the track.

After the Imperial Cup, BBC Racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght wrote: “A total of three bumps by the winner to the gallant runner-up led to the type of tight stewards’ inquiry which I’ve seen go either way – if your luck is in, you’ll be OK, if not you’ll get slung out.”

After the Eclipse, there was consternation when the Stewards’ deliberations took 18 minutes, delaying the announcement of the result of the race.

So it seems that in both instances there was prolonged debate within the Stewards’ Room. What do we know about the participants? They are either Professionals paid by the BHA, or they are Amateurs who do the job for the love of the game. We also know that the composition of the stewarding team at any race meeting is such that the Amateurs can never outvote the Chairman and the Professional Stewards if chairman and professionals are in agreement.

However the Amateurs take part in any debate that may develop and their contribution is valuable because, unlike the Professionals, they are unpaid and therefore independent. “Checks and balances” is the name of the game. It is a system that has worked well over many years.

For the sake of argument, I would bet a pound to a penny that in both the above instances the decision to ignore the rules and re-write the facts was taken by the Professional Stewards despite opposition from the Amateur camp. The use of the BHA website to legitimise the “adjustments” suggests that the perpetrators had access to the machinery of head office; probably out of bounds for the Amateurs.

Now let me tell you a story.

In Nov 2011, at the Champions’ Day meeting at Ascot, the BHA unveiled a new set of Whip Rules. After the biggest race of the day the Stewards fined the winning jockey £55,000 because he had hit his horse once too often in the dash for the line.

The nub of the matter was as per the following exchange:

The Professional Steward: “Six blows of the whip!  One too many. Prize money £737,730  means a fine of £55,000. It’s black and white!” He was doubtless waving a rule book at the time.

Amateur Steward: “I did not take up stewarding in order to fine a jockey a huge sum of money, when I have just seen him ride a perfect race!”

Within a week the rules was adjusted and the jockey was reimbursed.

What is the point of the story? It shows that Amateur Stewards are important to racing. They carry clout when push comes to shove. So how come the BHA has been making noises recently about the possibility of doing away with Amateur Stewards altogether?

That doesn’t surprise me. There is evidence that the BHA can quite frequently be immensely stupid.

My message to the Amateur Stewards is as follows: the status quo is worth defending, for the good of racing as well as for the good of the Amateurs concerned. Do not lie down. Do not go quietly. Get stuck in. You are far more important to racing than, for example, the professionals who fiddled the books in the two races featured above. Send a small but determined delegation to see Mr Rust, and instruct them to give him a hard time. The great majority of your excellent team can be all sweetness and light when the war is over.

Barry Hills, Richard Hughes (and a million other good judges) want you to stay –

so does yours truly

DONEC