|
|
 |
| |
|  |
THOUGHTS FROM HIGH HOLBORN
1,000 Guineas Result Response
6th May 2010
We have received a number of emails this week – though not masses, certainly fewer than 20 - commenting on the decision to amend the result of the 1,000 Guineas. A variety of reasons have been cited as to why people did not agree with the decision:
1 – It was just wrong
2 – There was no interference
3 – It was a decision based on elitism or prejudice
4 – Special Duty’s jockey didn’t stop riding
5 – Jacqueline Quest won going away
6 – There’s no consistency and this never happens, so why on the 1,000 Guineas (this comment usually being linked to point 3 above)
I won’t deal with each of these individually, but hopefully I can address them all in one full explanation.
I would start by saying I don’t think there would be a person, connected with racing or otherwise, who would not agree what an amazing story it would have been had Jacqueline Quest been declared the winner of the 1000 Guineas. Noel Martin’s story is truly remarkable and moving, and I’m not ashamed to admit the incredibly emotional footage of Jacqueline Quest being led to her owner by her groom brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat.
However, the Stewards are required to be unaffected by emotion and cannot concern themselves with possible public criticism or the personalities involved. To consider such matters would inevitably lead to incorrect decisions being made, would do a disservice to those involved and would be plainly wrong.
It is always preferred that any race be decided on the race track instead of in the Stewards’ Room. However, when an incident occurs during a race which could have an effect on the final placings, the Stewards are duty bound to hold an enquiry and determine the result of the race.
These types of enquiries usually lead to the most emotive outcomes of any enquiry held on a racecourse. This is because of the number of people affected by the decision and everyone, as they are entitled to, forms an opinion on the merit of the decision arrived at by the Stewards.
These opinions are arrived at through many different means. The Stewards are not permitted to have a vested interest in any race on which they officiate. They are to act in an impartial manner.
Turning to our rules on interference. The Rules of Racing on this topic mirror the comparable Rules in most other developed racing jurisdictions, excepting France, the USA, and Japan.
The application of the rule as it is worded in those (France, USA, Japan) jurisdictions has led to howls of criticism and it is generally felt that the wording and mechanics of the our rule are much fairer to all involved in the sport.
When dealing with a case of interference that might have affected the placings, the Stewards are required to satisfy themselves whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the horse causing the interference improved its placing in relation to the horse(s) it has interfered with. Said another way, the Stewards are required to form an opinion on whether the horse that suffered interference would have finished in front of the horse causing the interference, but for the interference having taken place.
The rule acknowledges, through its wording, that there is no tangible manner available to measure the effect of interference on the horses involved. It is for this reason the requirement is placed on the Stewards to form their own independent opinion. It must be remembered that they are only required to apply the test of "balance of probabilities", i.e. something is more likely than not. The criminal onus of “beyond all reasonable doubt” does not apply to Stewards Enquiries.
In forming their opinion the Stewards will rely on their observations and ask themselves questions such as:-
- Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
- How were the horses involved in the interference travelling at the time of the interference?
- What was the material effect of the interference on the horse interfered with?
- What was the margin between the relevant horses at the end of the race?
- But for the interference, might the horse interfered with have finished in front of the horse which caused the interference?
In addition to asking themselves those questions, the Stewards also rely on the following Guiding Principles, and I have highlighted in bold the ones that are relevant to this particular case. These are available in our Guide to Penalties and Procedures.
a) Dangerous Riding - the placing(s) must be altered as the interferer must be disqualified.
b) Careless, Improper or Accidental - if the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse causing it, the placings must be altered.
c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front.
d) Stewards should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses.
e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that the result should be changed.
f) Stewards must make allowance for the momentum and ground lost by the sufferer by imagining that it had an uninterrupted run to the line.
g) Stewards must NOT make an allowance for any effect on the horse causing the interference.
h) Stewards must take into account the ease with which the interferer beat the sufferer.
i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance from the winning post.
INTERFERENCE
Over the concluding stages of the 1000 Guineas, Jacqueline Quest first shifted right and made contact with Special Duty, then continually carried that filly from the running to which it was rightfully entitled by continuing to shift across the track towards the right in the run to the finish, a total of about 8 horse widths.
With 2 furlongs to run Special Duty was approximately 2 lengths behind Jacqueline Quest, then after continuing to make ground was less than 1 length behind with 1 furlong to run. Special Duty was almost continually taken off her line by Jacqueline Quest over about the last 150 yards of the race and was beaten by an official margin of a nose - a distance of less than two inches.
The Stewards, after considering the relevant facts only, formed the opinion that but for the interference, which clearly took place, Special Duty would have finished in front of Jacqueline Quest.
Of particular interest is Pythagoras’ theorem, for which we have a chart which details the ground lost depending on how far a horse is taken of its line and over what distance. Looking at the head on replay, Jacqueline Quest takes Special Duty off her line by at least 8 horses widths over no more than ¾ of a furlong. This would equate to 7 inches distance, with the winning distance as described above.
Regardless of whether or not Special Duty’s jockey stopped riding, being carried across the track cost her more distance than she was beaten by.
Having criticised the Racing Post’s Colin Russell in my last blog, I must give him fulsome praise in this instance because his Racing Post Opinion piece on Monday got this spot on – and without any prompting from us.
Given all that, there does not appear to be any evidence to support any assertion that the Stewards acted in anything other than the correct manner, however disappointing that decision was.
The BHA is very mindful of the importance of consistency in Stewards decisions. This is stressed to all Stewards and we organise a programme of training days throughout the year at which attendance by all Stewards is compulsory. The aim of these training days is to bring consistency in the decision making of the various Stewards’ Panels.
Remember, the Stewards have to consider all of the factors mentioned above, so whilst there have no doubt been cases of more serious interference, if the result has not been amended it is because, on the balance of probabilities, the Stewards cannot be satisfied that the interference improved the position of the horse causing it.
This could be due to where the interference took place (eg two furlongs out, so the sufferer had plenty of time to try and make up the ground) or due to the winning margin (eg a length). We accept that there are some that disagree with that approach, but it is exactly the same approach that the majority of racing jurisdictions operate.
In 2009, there were 25 amended placings as a result of enquiries into interference, underlining the fact that this was not a high profile one-off.
In addition to the interference itself, a number of people have commented on the sequence of events and how the announcement of the result was handled. The Stewards do not call an Enquiry prior to the Judge determining the placings simply because, depending on which horse the Judge places first, there may be no need to hold an enquiry into the result of the race.
The manner in which this matter was handled is the same as for all similar matters, and is also consistent with international practice. I’m also not aware of any complaints previously about this part of the process. That said, using ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’ does not mean you should simply continue doing things in that way, so we will consider whether any improvements can be made.
Some might still disagree the decision even after all this, and that’s one of the great things about racing – the passion and debate it generates. However I doubt there is anyone out there who would not wish to see Jacqueline Quest gain compensation at the highest level at some point over the course of the season. I for one will certainly be cheering for her at Royal Ascot.
Frontrunner Page News
29th March 2010
Had a shocker this morning. Changed the time on my iphone on Saturday night and all was fine yesterday, but got to the station in Andover this morning to catch the 7.05 train to see that the time was actually 6am. The poxy phone must have knocked itself forward again overnight last night, which is irritating to say the least, so I’m now on the 6.25am train to London.
This week starts as well as the last one ended. A little birdie told me I had hit the front pages on Friday, though any excitement was shortlived, when I discovered it was only the front page of the Madgwick Chronicles, or ‘Frontrunner Newsletter’ as it’s more commonly known. It’s a bit like a racing version of Private Eye, in that it’s written in English. I’m not sure what I’ve done to upset the bespectacled IT programmer who writes it, but he sure doesn’t like me.
Apparently I didn’t make the shortlist for the Director of Comms role when it was advertised over two years ago. That is true, but it’s where the accuracy of the story begins and ends. Apparently my boss, Nic Coward, told me the job “wasn’t for me.” That’s simply not true.
Secondly, I apparently failed to communicate any comment after the collapse of the Miles Rodgers trial. Midgwick might not have liked what I’d had to say, but I remember reading our statement live on Sky News surrounded by racing’s finest scribes, then answered a load of questions. Fair comment perhaps to say I was useless, but it’s absolute tosh to say I communicated no message.
Midgwick then goes on about our BHA Xtra service at Cheltenham, which no one knew about apparently or could find on our website even if they did know about it. That’s strange, I thought, because we press released it and, whilst admittedly our website may not be the easiest to navigate, you could access it from the home page, so I'm surprised an IT specialist couldn't access it. Moreover, we had over 40,000 ‘listens’ to the audio clips uploaded at Cheltenham, mostly by Robin, our online editor (he of weak bladder fame, for those that read my blog at Cheltenham last year). It would be irritating if it wasn’t so amusingly inaccurate.
Last week was busy, particularly as Midgwick points out I’d been out of the office the previous week at Cheltenham. Speaking of The Festival, it was a fantastic week with phenomenal coverage in the lead up to the week generally, and in particular the Gold Cup, and following Imperial Commander’s seriously impressive victory. Whilst I was personally disappointed that Denman and Kauto hadn’t won, I was pleased the Commander won, not because I’d backed him but because his owners – ‘Our Friends in the North’ – were so gracious and easy to deal with over the alleged ‘fuss’ over the Betfair Chase photograph scandal-that-never-was, especially Ian Robinson.
Simon Claisse and his team did a fantastic job with the ground over a frighteningly difficult winter, and it’s just a shame Hurdlegate and Binoculargate got in the way a little. On the former, Simon’s publicly admitted he should have informed the public sooner and has apologised. I found out about it on the Sunday before Cheltenham when a colleague told me I might get a call from the Racing Post. I have to say, it never crossed my mind about there being any possible issue. There’s no doubt in my mind that it should have been communicated earlier, and of course the shape of certain races might well have been different, but I don’t believe people who fancied Get Me Out Of Here, for example, wouldn’t have backed him if they’d known about it sooner. That being the case, it may well go some way to explaining why I’m such an average (ie rubbish) punter.
As for Binocular, he was never scratched from the race, so there was always a chance he would run. The betting was checked and the exchanges had no integrity concerns, none of the High Street bookies complained to us about being stung, and our view was that Nicky Henderson was simply trying to be helpful in a changing situation.
Events at Lingfield then took over the headlines and we’ve dealt with it swiftly and the hearing is today. Some questioned why the police were not involved, and the simple explanation was that the individual concerned was bound by the Rules of Racing so the Stewards were able to deal with it, and those involved could have called the police themselves. I spoke to several of those involved, including Elna Bright’s owner Peter Crate. It surprised me when he said that I was the only person who’d asked how the horse was, but fortunately it’s not a serious injury and Elna Bright will only need a few weeks off.
I had an entertaining email exchange with a member of the public who thought we were burying our heads in the sand by not calling the police. I pointed out to her that we don’t call the police on the rare occasion when jockeys hit each other, not did we after the incident at Beverley involving Kieren all those years ago. She said this was different and referred to Duncan Ferguson being jailed for his infamous onfield headbutt. I thought that was hypocritical, and declined the opportunity to reply saying that the FA now have an agreement with the police that they will deal with onfield violence between players. We agreed to disagree, though I’m surprised we even agreed on that.
Talking of entertaining, Colin Russell elucidated for the second time on his race planning ideas in the Racing Post. I felt like I’d been transported back to 2004 with his comments about racecourses in close proximity racing on the same day. Perhaps he thinks we made up the OFT agreement, whereby we had to do away with the old 50-mile rule. I wouldn’t mind so much but it’s not like he rang us up to check the facts, nor did he ring Doncaster or Wetherby to get their views on why they would wish to race on the same day. When I lived north of the Trent the phones always seemed to work fine, but perhaps something’s changed since I moved down South.
|
|
|
