If Asfahrisucan deserved to go, then so did Westlake
Asfahrisucan was plced second after beating Life For Rent by a neck. She was found guilty of interference inside the final furlong and winning rider, Susan Leahy, was suspended for seven days for improper riding.
That Ms Leahy’s performance was less than satisfactory is hardly up for discussion. She allowed herself too many glances behind and a look to the left before her partner drifted in that direction was, one assumes, the final nail in the proverbial coffin.
Following the announcement that Asfahrisucan had been disqualified, the press asked to be allowed to see the film, on which the stewards based their decision, and were duly accommodated. Stewards’ secretary, Paddy Graffin, took us through the procedure, made the case for the stewards and a healthy exchange of views followed.
In truth, Graffin made plenty of sense and it wasn’t difficult to understand how the conclusion was reached that the winner should be demoted.
The fact that Leahy was found guilty of improper riding was crucial to the case. The message, at least the one I got, was that if words like improper, incompetent, reckless or dangerous are involved then disqualification is going to be your lot.
But wait a minute, what about the most crucial question of all, the one we have all been working off for a long time now? I thought and, suspect, so did numerous others, that the real question for all stewards was: did the winner improve his/her placing?
This is what the Racing Post analysis of the race said: “Although Asfahrisucan drifted left in towards the rail inside the final furlong and narrowed the gap appreciably, the runner-up’s jockey never had to stop riding.”
I couldn’t agree more. The second, quite honestly, didn’t look the most enthusiastic and actually seemed to carry his rider across the track to the rail. Personally, I think the best horse won and, interference and improper riding notwithstanding, did not improve her placing.
There’s no disputing this was a marginal decision and we’d accept the judgement of the stewards without much bother, but for the Westlake case at Leopardstown.
I have watched the contest many times since and still have difficulty getting my head round the fact he was allowed keep the race.
Westlake veered to his right inside the furlong pole, carrying eventual second, Farmer Brown, with him.
Fran Berry was riding Farmer Brown and quickly and smartly switched inside Westlake. Then Westlake veered sharply left close home, badly hampering the second.
They had hardly gone past the line than my mobile rang. It was a friend who was on track and had bet the odds on Westlake. “What do you think?’, he gushed anxiously. “Save your bet”, says I, “It’s an open and shut case, he has to go.” Couldn’t have been more wrong! In the wake of that, I asked myself just one question - what do you have to do in this country to lose a race? I got my answer at Tipperary.
This was the conclusion the stewards reached at Leopardstown. “The stewards were satisfied that, while interference had taken place, they were not satisfied it had helped Westlake to improve his position.”
Yeah, right. So, they weren’t satisfied it had helped him improve his position. Jeez, maybe it hindered him! Pat Smullen did everything to keep Westlake straight and there was no question of incompetent, improper, reckless or dangerous riding.
But answer me this, which looked, indeed was, the more serious incident? To my eyes, Westlake by a mile.
The sad part of all of this is that there have been very few cases over the last number of years where one had occasion to question the decisions of stewards. A real consistency had developed and literally everyone could tell you, when a stewards’ inquiry was called, what was going to happen. And that’s the way it should be.
But if we have one at Limerick today, or in the near future, then it really will be back to the guessing game.
We can rattle on about words and technicalities all day. We can argue that Westlake and Asfahrisucan are fundamentally different and have to be taken on their respective merits.
But, in the end, you just cannot escape the feeling that if Asfahrisucan deserved to go, then so did Westlake.
