The best policy?

In the previous chapter, I touched upon some words in the Racing Post which had caused me to scratch my head. It is, of course, not uncommon to read something in a newspaper which causes one bemusement, and a snippet in the Racing Post of Monday 4th July certainly had me slightly surprised. When Frankie (pictured up at the Links a couple of weeks ago under William, who rode him to victory at Stratford) won his bumper at Stratford at the end of May, I found the day 140 pounds less profitable than it might have been, courtesy of copping a fine because there was found to be an irregularity in the horse's vaccination records. In fact, my mistake has cost me more than that as the horse has had to start a new course, and therefore my error has also cost me the price of two new shots of Prevac-T, which is probably about another 70 pounds. Basically, the third shot in a course has to come within 215 days of the second (and the course becomes annual thereafter) and, because of an innocent mistake in which I had miscounted my days, it was noticed that his third shot had come 217 days after the second. The horse was still allowed to run, but he had to start a new course of vaccinations afterwards, and my miscalculation, which I made no attempt to conceal or deny, meant that I was given the statutory fine, which apparently is 140 pounds. That was fair enough: I was guilty and, even if one might feel that the minor-ness of the indiscretion doesn't really equate to 140 pounds' worth of either guilt or damage done, if that is the standard punishment, then that is the standard punishment. Case closed.

But should the case be closed? In the Racing Post of Monday 4th July, I read the following: "Debra Hamer was fined 80 pounds (at Market Rasen the previous day) for a passport irregularity, concerning a doctored vaccination entry, for her Michigan Assassin but the nine-year-old was allowed to run in the race won by North Island". A "doctored vaccination entry"? It would seem safe to presume that one would only doctor one's vaccination entries if they do not fall within the specified time limits, otherwise there would be no point in doctoring them. So basically if one's vaccinations are out of time, by however small a margin, and one is completely honest about it, one gets a fine of 140 pounds. But if one's vaccinations are out of time and one doctors the passport to try to mislead BHA officials to cover this up, the fine is 80 pounds. Can that be right? I used to labour under the misapprehension that lying to mislead BHA officials was a serious crime. I now know that it carries a reward of 60 pounds, so I might have to re-think my previous rule of life that honesty is the best policy.