Ruby Walsh: Demotion only answer in cases of clear interference
The Bosses Oscar and Gavin Brouder (right) win the He'llberemembered Hurdle from Rightplacerightime and Liam Quinlan (left) at Thurles. Photo: Healy Racing
Everything seems to be changing or have changed in the last seven months, and normal no longer feels normal or is normal in so many ways, all of which you are well aware of. But one thing that needs to change is the rules of horse racing surrounding interference and how it is dealt with.
At Thurles on Thursday we had a classic example of how the rules, written as they are, simply don’t work and we got an interpretation of them that would make VAR look perfect.
The incident involved The Bosses Oscar, ridden by Gavin Brouder, and Rightplacerightime, ridden by Liam Quinlan. The rest of this column is not an attack on Gavin Brouder, who is a fine younger rider with a very bright future. He is a young man making rapid progress who, in my eyes, simply rode incorrectly, but this just happens to be one of any number of cases I could have chosen to show how flawed the rules are.
The Bosses Oscar jumped the last with a few lengths in hand but began to idle when landing and slowed himself down. Rightplacerighttime flew the last and gathered some momentum to deliver a challenge to the outside of The Bosses Oscar, who began to drift to his left and straight into the path of Rightplacerighttime, stalling the momentum of that rival whilst giving himself a chance to regain his own.
The Bosses Oscar quickly put the race to bed and won by two and a quarter lengths. The best horse won the race, of that there is no doubt. Phrase it as you wish but, to my eyes and mindset, he committed a serious foul or caused significant interference but is still the winner.
The stewards in Thurles deemed the incident to be accidental and took no action. “An unfortunate incident that happened unexpectedly and unintentionally.” It was that — if you are willing to accept that no effort was taken to try prevention before the cure.
: The Bosses Oscar warned his rider he was going to drift left under a right-hand drive 100 yards before the last hurdle and then did as he suggested he would do, to cause interference 100 yards after the last hurdle. The rider never changed his whip into his left hand or took sufficient hold of his right rein for 200 yards and allowed the interference to happen.
When you cross the road at Thurles approaching the last hurdle you pick up a continuous running rail on your right, the perfect guide and aid to get you to the winning post in a straight line, and one usually claimed by the horse in front. Steer right and put your whip in your left hand — a basic skill taught and explained to every jockey. The easiest way to stay straight is with a rail as guide.
They are two things the rider should have done to prevent the “accident,” so I am sorry but deeming this accidental is insulting to anyone whoever rode in a race. It was careless, and the higher end of careless too.
It was not dangerous, because there was no intent, but significant interference should surely mean you get placed behind the horse to whom you caused the interference? Of course it should — if you have simple, normal rules and not complex reams of subtexts with roman numeral add-ons so nobody actually has to make a decision, only follow from one question to next and find the answer.
Racing is and always will be dangerous, that is a fact that was well established before I ever starting riding. But, from the time I started until I finished, improvements in equipment, racecourses and medical facilities have helped deal with the danger. But, careless riding will never be eradicated just like careless tackles in field sports will always be a part of the game and careless drivers will always drive cars.
If you protect the fouled, by demoting those who commit the foul, intentionally or unintentionally, the concentration and onus on riders to ride straighter and tighter to one another in order to stay straight will heighten.
Simply allowing horses to keep races because they were the best horse or did not improve their position is just like awarding a team the win in a drawn match because they should have won. Bizarre.
It is how much the ground the fouled horse lost that should be the consideration along with how much ground the fouler should have lost by taking the required action not to commit the foul i.e. stop riding, stall momentum and straighten up. Whether you are in a scoring position or chasing a hopeless cause, if you are fouled in the penalty area of any other sport, you are awarded a penalty shot.
“All reasonable and permissible action” is the favoured quote to explain a jockey’s riding, but this never asks the most obvious question of any rider: “Did you put both hands on the reins and use them to slow and straighten your horse?” It only ever asks if you had your whip in the correct hand, although I have never yet seen anybody manage to steer a horse with a whip!
Dangerous riding is a serious offence in the rule book, as it should be, but I have seen very few cases in my life where someone’s intent was to put their opposition in danger. Intentional interference does not mean dangerous, yet that is what intentional interference comes under.
Barging is intentional not dangerous, bumping is careless not dangerous, but drifting is a careless action which can cause extra danger. So, careless riding needs to cover more than it does and have more powers. Minor, medium and severe levels need to be introduced.
A coming together is not a serious issue and carries no extra risk, but drifting is more serious and, although I agree with the rules of the road here, in that if you run into the back of the one in front of you it is your fault, there are cases like yesterday when the one behind was totally blameless.
A can of worms you might say but the onus here needs to be on those who are teaching our riders as much as the stewards. The tighter you ride to the horse beside you, the fewer gaps you leave and the less likely you are to drift. The fewer gaps you leave between horses, the fewer riders that seek to poke into non-existent or half gaps in front of them. Those who barge out are easily spotted and barging out, whether or not you are on the best horse, does improve position.
You should have to think and find your way out of pockets or positions that are within the rules. Being on the best horse does not give you a divine right to simply get to the winning post first and worry about the result afterwards. Being on the best horse should make it easier to stay within the rules and win — if only the rules where written that simply and clearly.
This is not a danger issue. Nobody is in any more danger today riding horses than they were 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. In fact, they are probably in less danger. It is an integrity issue, and bigger bans on riders won’t work either. Demotion is the only and most obvious deterrent.
Jockeys fear trainers and the value of their jobs more than they do any set of stewards. A jockey getting banned does not bother or affect the trainer or owner, only the jockey. Demote the horse and it is everyone’s issue to correct and ensure it does not happen again.
