More Rule Tweaking

Following on from yet another change to the whip rules may I suggest a few more rule changes, which I believe will help improve our sport.

One important change, already being discussed on the back of the recent changes, is the introduction of centralised stewarding.

For too long the sport has relied on well-meaning amateur stewards who have varying levels of competencies, from pretty good right through to the inexplicable.   In recent years they have been supplemented by stipendiary stewards, employees of the BHA who are supposed to bring some consistency to proceedings.

Now that has worked but only to a limited extent. As with the amateur stewards the standard of the stipes is variable. Most are good but one or two have gained a reputation as being out to make a name for themselves or have been perceived as being biased against particular riders.

The stipes also work on a regional basis and this has led to a situation where, for example, stewarding in the north is perceived to be much stricter than in the south. Certainly many northern based jockeys are of the view they are punished more harshly riding in the north than had they committed the same offence in the south.

The answer is simple – have one amateur and one professional steward on course to deal with local administrative issues but have a central panel, based at BHA headquarters, to deal with any disciplinary enquiries arising during the meeting. Having a central panel should provide a greater consistency and remove the current postcode lottery where different panels will reach different verdicts for what is basically the same offence.

 

Next up is a further "tweak" to the whip rules, which should have been implemented from day one, and it is for serious breaches to also involve withholding not only the rider’s prize money but also the prize money from the trainers and owners as well. That would concentrate the minds more and would discourage connections from encouraging their jockey to adopt a “win at all costs” policy.

The BHA tried to address this by prohibiting connections from “compensating” riders who had been penalised their prize money, however that is a wholly unworkable regulation and could be circumvented so ridiculously easily that it is not worth the paper it is written on.  

There is another change I would make would to penalties. I would scrap the provision whereby Group One race days are automatically excluded from “minor” bans, which can be perceived as being somewhat perverse, and all bans will run on consecutive days.

However I would also offer a “pay-off” against the change.

I would retain the default situation, whereby any ban comes into force 14 days after the ban is given. However I would also allow a rider, at their own discretion and for bans of seven days or less, to have the ban commence at an earlier date, to ameliorate the impact of the ban.

So, for example,  if a ban starting in 14 days time meant a rider missing part of a major meeting, the rider, if they so wished, could choose to have the ban commence earlier, even the day after it was given, should they choose to accept the ban.

This should help reduce the number of, frankly, pointless appeals which always seem to spring up in the build-up to the big festivals.

My next change is an administrative change, whereby trainers should lodge a copy of the riding instructions given to the rider with the clerk of the scales at the point where the jockey weighs out. To ensure confidentiality they could be submitted in sealed envelopes.

The declaration should be signed by the trainer (or their representative) and the rider. Should there then be an enquiry into the running of a particular horse then the written instructions can form part of the enquiry.  It should resolve some of the ambiguity around riding instructions in non-trier cases.

There are quite a few other changes I can think of but these will do for starters.  

Weights, Drugs, Booze and Wrong Calls

There is so much to write about in what has been an eventful week.

There is one story which almost slipped through the net last Thursday and that concerns an appeal by Kieren Fox in relation to a four day ban he received for weighing in 1½lbs light at a Kempton meeting on 19^th September.

Custom and practice has dictated the jockey and the jockey alone is responsible for ensuring he carries the correct weight throughout the race. Yet, as soon as he weighs out the jockey hands his saddle to the trainer or head lad so the horse can be saddled. He will not see the saddle again until he sees the horse in the parade ring.

Aided by his very eloquent boss, John Best, the appeal panel found in Fox’s favour stating, “that there was not motive, opportunity nor evidence that Kieren Fox was responsible for the loss of 1½lb lead which was found to be missing on weighing in.”   

It is a very wise and sensible decision . . . how can a jockey be held responsible when the saddle is out of his direct control?

Let me say there is absolutely no question of nefarious goings on in this case and the likelihood is the weight accidentally dropped out of the saddle cloth as it was being carried from the weighing room to the saddling area.

However this decision of the disciplinary panel must result in a change to presumption that the jockey is presumed responsible, even when the saddle is out of his control.

If not the only solution I can see is the jockey is made to carry the saddle to the saddling area himself and he watches the saddling process himself, somehow I cannot see the likes of Fallon and Dettori doing that.   

When I fly, for example, I am quite happy to accept responsibility for what is in my baggage up until the point I check it in. Thereafter I would not expect to be held responsible for anything added or taken from my bag.

It was a busy day for the disciplinary panel last Thursday as also before them were Jack Mitchell and Franny Norton.

Jack Mitchell was before the panel for having traces of benzoylecgonine, a diagnostic metabolite of cocaine and a banned substance in his urine. In other words it indicated he had taken some cocaine in the previous 48 hours. To his credit Mitchell admitted the offence and was very contrite in his submission to the panel.

Norton was appearing before the panel after he failed a breath test for alcohol at Chester in May, indeed the alcohol reading was at a level higher than the allowed limit for driving.

Mitchell was banned for six months, Norton for 40 days.

Both bans are perverse and wrong.

Yes Mitchell was stupid and I am in no way condoning the taking of illegal drugs and what he did was wrong. Yes there were traces of benzoylecgonine in his urine but the actual taking of the cocaine may well have been 48 hours earlier so his ability to ride would not have been impaired that greatly, if at all. Yes he needs to be punished but a six month ban is excessive. If Mitchell’s assertion that this was a one off is accepted, and there is no reason to doubt what he said, then a shorter ban plus attendance at a drug rehabilitation program at his own expense should be sufficient deterrent.

Jack Mitchell

Mitchell is young and youngsters make mistakes, draconian punishments for such mistakes are excessive. To deny somebody of their livelihood for six months for using seems harsh. Firstly when you consider the police, automatically give a caution for a first offence.

Secondly the dealers, who are far more culpable than the users, receive an average sentence of 3 years 3 months and a £167 fine (of course that means they will 19 months in reality).

Turning to Norton he was about to ride a horse whilst over the permitted limit for alcohol – in other words he was drunk. He judgement must have been impaired and he was potentially a danger to himself, his mounts and to other riders. Especially at a tight turning course like Chester.

Yet he was handed a ban of forty days.

I’m sorry but I consider turning up at a racecourse drunk, potentially endangering other riders to be far more serious than Mitchell’s offence.

Norton does not even have the excuse of youth, he is 41 years old and should know better.

Whilst some mitigation factors can be made for Mitchell, none can be made for Norton.

As a footnote it is worth noting Norton was found guilty of having benzoylecgonine in his urine in 2003 and he only received a four month ban.

Finally the normally dependable Stewart Machin made an uncharacteristic mistake when calling the wrong winner at Warwick on Monday afternoon, Mistaking  Rio’s Girl for the very similarly coloured Straboe.  I was at Warwick and I can say the professional man that he is Stewart was absolutely shocked and devastated at the mistake he made.

The press room can be the cruellest place at times but even the most cynical hacks, and there were some at Warwick yesterday, were so taken aback at Stewart’s reaction that all offered him words of encouragement and not the extreme micky taking I’m sure he was expecting. The reaction from the guys in the press room indicates the respect we have for Stewart’s commentating.

Of course there was the inevitable verbal diarrhoea being spouted on Betfair, although to be fair it wasn’t as bad as it can be when we get the race mistakes from commentators.

Apparently one punter lost some £38k on Rio’s Girl based of Stewart’s call and many posters were rallying to that punters cause.

Sorry I have no sympathy for the punter at all, indeed I would actually go as far as to say he actually deserves to lose the money.

No commentator, no matter how good he is, is infallible and to rely on a third party when risking such sums of money is insanely stupid.

Also is there not a perverse contradiction here. Stewart is being criticised for mis-identifying two horses, yet the defenders of the punter are not criticising him, yet he too clearly failed to identify the two horses.     

No wonder the Betfair forum is considered such a joke.