The integrity wing of racing’s ruling body has come in for further criticism over its handling of a “running and riding” prosecution that has been abandoned just days after it began. The jockey Martin Harley was charged on Tuesday with making insufficient effort in a race – at Chelmsford a fortnight ago – but was immediately able to prove that he gave a complete explanation for his ride to the raceday stewards, which explanation was not shared with the British Horseracing Authority’s head office.
The BHA acknowledged that Harley had no case to answer, the rider having said on the day that his mount, Rebel Lightning, had taken “a wrong step” coming out of a bend and needed time to recover before being asked for a further effort. Stinging criticism for the regulator came from Harley’s solicitor, Rory Mac Neice, who said: “This is another example of the BHA setting themselves a very low bar and missing it.”
Mac Neice expressed concern about the BHA’s press release, which described its volte face as coming after “additional information”. “The BHA, through its officials at Chelmsford, did know the full details of Martin’s post-race report before the decision to charge was taken,” Mac Neice said.
“Care needs to be taken by the BHA to make sure that they do not suggest that the BHA did not have this information.
“If those in London didn’t bother to speak to those who were working at Chelmsford before issuing charges, that is a very significant failure. It’s not an excuse or an explanation, which is how the BHA appear to be now trying to portray it. Nor is the fact that the BHA failed to accurately record and publish Martin’s post-race report in full; that is a basic role of BHA officials. Participants are entitled to expect them to get it right.”
Mac Neice also said that the decision to charge Harley suggested an absence of basic race-reading skills at the BHA and asserted that footage of the race makes it clear that the jockey was not at fault. “Martin looked down when the horse changed leads [the foreleg on which he was leading], he gave the horse a chance to recover, as the BHA now admits, and then asked his horse for its effort. Why was that missed by the BHA officials who reviewed this race?
“That raises serious doubts about the ability of the people who reviewed this race, as opposed to the stewards at Chelmsford, who made the right decision. Those who reviewed it [in High Holborn] appear to lack the requisite skill and ability to perform that role.
“I think the BHA needs to have another go at its press release in order to set out exactly what was going on at High Holborn and it needs to stop making these mistakes. These are basic errors and the charge that was made against Martin has reputational risks for any rider. It appears in this case that they’ve made the decision to charge and then thought about asking questions afterwards.”
Similar criticism came from Paul Struthers, the chief executive of the Professional Jockeys Association, who said the expense of hiring Mac Neice would have been avoided if the BHA had taken some obvious steps before charging Harley. “Stewards make decisions under significant time pressure and everyone accepts that there will be occasions when they don’t get it right and their decisions get overturned on appeal,” Struthers said. “Those time pressures don’t exist when a case is reopened and therefore there is no excuse for getting it wrong, when doing so could cause significant damage to someone’s career.
“It is to the BHA’s credit that they have quickly acknowledged they were wrong to issue charges, have withdrawn them and issued a qualified apology to Martin, but it was all so avoidable in the first place.”
A statement from the BHA said: “We apologise to Martin that the charges were brought in this manner,” and the regulator’s spokesman, Robin Mounsey, accepted without argument that mistakes had been made. However, he defended the regulator’s right to inquire whenever it felt that circumstances required it and suggested more use might be made of the BHA’s review function.
“It is an area that we are looking to become more active in as we strive to do more to protect the sport’s integrity,” Mounsey said. “On the basis of the ride itself and the evidence considered by the team at head office, we remain of the view that it was correct to take a further look at this ride, and the charges that ensued were based on this evidence.
“However, it later became clear that there were two elements of the rider’s report to BHA officials on the day. One element had not been recorded. Had this information been known, we would not have pressed charges.”
The BHA’s integrity department has been the subject of sustained criticism this year after the quashing of a verdict against the trainer Jim Best brought it to the centre of attention. Best’s case was recently reheard and a verdict is expected in the next week. He denies a charge of having instructed a jockey to stop two horses in races last December.
