Thirty-odd years of following horse racing have induced a suspicion and even a modicum of dislike of those who are swaggeringly confident in the expression of their opinions about horses. It is a game to be approached with caution and caveats, bearing in mind how many times there have been surprises in the past.
Surely, then, it is not wise to force racing’s stewards to adopt a pundit’s role, yet this is exactly what the current rules on interference require. Unless the jockey at fault is found guilty of dangerous riding, which has not happened for years, his mount is to be disqualified only if the stewards are “satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse with which it interfered”.
How can they know? While TV analysts pontificate about what might have happened if the interference had not occurred and angry voices are raised in racecourse bars, the stewards are expected to rise above the squabbles, ending them with a definitive verdict.
The folly of this system is seen in the recent toings and froings over the St Leger, the result of which has been changed twice since the race was staged a fortnight ago. Simple Verse was first past the post, a head in front of Bondi Beach, having collided with him twice. The Doncaster stewards felt the result had been affected and swapped the placings before an appeal panel in London this week felt differently and swapped them back.
That must have come as a mild surprise to racing’s ruling body, which had recommended that the original disqualification be upheld. Why is everyone involved coming up with a different decision? Partly because this is a finely balanced case but also because they are all guessing.
We pride ourselves on having a “common sense” approach in this country, the rules being intended to let the “best” horse keep the victory. But one would not trust the stewards, the appeal panel or any official to identify the best horse before the race and I submit that they can still get it wrong after the event.
John Kelsey-Fry QC, appearing at the appeal on behalf of Bondi Beach’s connections, spoke persuasively on the subject of “time to recover”. This colt, he argued, is not a “push-button” rocket but a stayer, who was on the outside of the field because his jockey wanted him to have the entire half-mile home straight to build momentum. The fact that Bondi Beach was beaten only a head after twice suffering interference suggested to Kelsey-Fry he was an unlucky loser.
The lawyer argued that, if Simple Verse had not forced her way out of a pocket, the alternative would have been to take her back behind Bondi Beach and go round him, giving up at least a length. He invited the panel to conclude she would not have made up that ground in the time available. “The test is, who would have won that race as that race developed, absent the interference,” he asserted.
In fact, racing’s rules do not ask stewards to take this approach but perhaps they should, because it might help dissuade jockeys from forcing a gap. Instead they can be expected to do more of this in big races. Unless one’s horse is on the weak side, the smart thing will be to take the shortest way round, knowing one can barge one’s way out of trouble if need be. If that really does become the prevailing wisdom, horses and jockeys will be put at regular risk.
Surely the common-sense approach would be to make stewards focus on the gravity of the interference when deciding whether to disqualify. That would remove all question of which was the best horse, which officials are not well qualified to answer.
For safety’s sake, let them look at what has actually happened instead of conjecturing as to what might have been and let them be harder on those who appear to have deliberately shunted a rival to obtain a clear run.
Few in racing want disqualifications to be triggered as easily as in France or the United States but we have strayed too far in the opposite direction.
