Sandgate

We've had Sandgate this week, ie Raul da Silva's one-day suspension because he "had appeared to gently throw a handful of the polytrack surface at his filly's quarters to encourage it into the stalls" at Chelmsford on Thursday night.  He was consequently "suspended for 1 day for improper behaviour as it was deemed to be an unacceptable method of encouragement".  Yes, ludicrous, isn't it?  Especially in advance of an AW race in which the horse was about to have a much greater quantity of Polytrack kicked in her face much more violently.  We can all see how silly this is.  And I presume that the on-course stewards saw it too, hence their insertion of the word 'gently' into their summation.

As I understand it, this farce wasn't the fault of the on-course stewards as there is apparently a rule in the book which obliged them to act as they did.  Let us hope that common sense can prevail and that the rule can be reviewed (and altered/removed) before we have any more consequent miscarriages of justice.  Happily, this miscarriage of justice which the on-course stewards were obliged to make (and, don't forget, their job is to apply the rules, not to decide whether natural justice suggests that on this occasion the rules should be followed or ignored) isn't a big deal in the greater scheme of things.  Life will go on as normal, even for Raul da Silva, bar on that one day if it turns out to be a day on which he would have had a ride.

What if something similar were to happen in a more serious situation, though?  In other words, what happens if there is a different and more serious instance of the stewards facing a dilemma of either convicting an innocent man or ignoring their own rules, neither of which options is acceptable?  Well, we'll have to find out at some point because we already have such a situation.  One can understand why it is taking so long to bring Hughie Morrison's case to court, but that's what's happening there.  The option is either warning off a man who we all believe to be innocent, or over-ruling the rule-book.  Neither option is acceptable, so one can understand the procrastination, just in case something comes up.

In retrospect, it was lunacy to bring in a rule that said that in anabolic steroids' cases the trainer is automatically warned off, irrespective of whether he was or wasn't responsible, unless he can prove that he wasn't responsible.  Too easy, isn't it?  You don't like a trainer, so you surreptiously give one of his horses a dose of anabolic steroids, call the BHA's crime-line and pass on the anonymous 'information' that the horse in question might have been given something, and stand back and watch your enemy swing.  Defies belief that the rule-makers could have, as a knee-jerk over-reaction to a bunch of Godolphin horses testing positive to anabolic steroids four years ago, brought in a rule which potentially leaves the door wide open to making a miscarriage of justice compulsory.

Sandgate has caused quite a storm, but it's nothing compared to what lies ahead.  I presume that Hughie is trying to leave no stone unturned to find out who has set him up.  But if/when this quest draws an ultimate blank, one would like to hope that there would be some scope in pursuing a challenge against the legality of a rule which obliges the BHA to warn off someone without proving their guilt, ie which flies directly in the face of the basic principle of law-making which means that someone is deemed to be innocent until proved guilty.  Just a thought.