Thanks Dex, much appreciated. Stewards and the rules surrounding outcomes of races have become a nonsense in my view. Who can honestly tell what may or may not have happened in most of these cases. I hate to say it but maybe France has it better sorted than GB. I think we should revamp the whole system for interference and I personally think a "zero tolerance to interference" policy would be better than the mish mash we seem to have!
I think some sort of ban is inevitable, Oddy. At first look I thought it was 80% careless and 20% dangerous, but looking again - several times - I've changed that to 90/10; dangerous riding brings automatic disqualification, of course. For me, his guilt lay in continuing to ride the horse when it was apparent that Hazel Brook couldn't drift any further right without hitting the rail: in effect, he should have done the Paolo de Canio thing and stopped riding on the principle that the result of any game is secondary to the lives of those who play it. I can't believe that Jamie Snowden - a considerable rider himself in his day - wouldn't have supported him, even against a possibly angry owner. A couple of other points while I'm here: 1) there seems to be a widespread illusion that stewards must be 'certain' that the sufferer would have won if the interference hadn't happened. Not so - the BHA stewards' guidelines say clearly (in the section on Determining the Result following Interference) that the placings must be altered if the Panel is satisfied that ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES the interferer did improve its placing at the expense of the sufferer. The guidelines also admittedly say that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the horse first past the past, and that the longer the debate lasts the less likely stewards should be to reverse placings. But I think the instructions given to stewards are in themselves perfectly OK - how they're interpreted here and there is another matter. (Yes, Barney, I am talking about God's Least Rigorously Stewarded Racecourse). 2. I gather that the jockey got four days, which I wouldn't quarrel with. Doyle got five at Ascot for the Al Kazeem thing which (to my mind) was comparable, but I think stewards feel there's a greater duty of care on flat jockeys because things happen a lot faster and split-second decisions have to be made, often in heavy traffic. 3. The one point I've not heard anywhere is the role of the racecourse in all this. I think that if we're going to keep saying "Well, it happens a lot at Fontwell because of the proximity of the paddock exit-gate to the finishing post", the time has come for the racecourse authority to take action. The present situation -and today wasn't the first example - strikes me as an accident waiting to happen. Surely something like that dolled off walk-down chute at Cheltenham wouldn't be too difficult, and I imagine that the BHA would cough up a grant for the work if the media (and the Jockeys' Association) put some pressure on them.
Excellent points Rainer...I think the only way to address the howlers our stewards commit is to replace them with individuals fit for purpose. Who appoints these stewards?..what are their credentials?..what is the minimum criteria for selection?..how long is their tenure?..who validates their performance?..do they get support and retraining when they err? They are about as transparent as the Intrernational Olympic Committee..and equally undemocratic.
