Ribblesdale Stakes and Interference

by James Willoughby
 IT IS now common for riders in the best races in Britain to systematically exploit the leniency in the interference rules to gain a competitive edge. From Jan. 1, 2006 to June 20 this year, more than 430,000 runners appeared in British Flat races not confined to maidens. The rate at which they were described as having been “hampered,” “checked” or “bumped” in close-up comments provided by the Press Association, conditioned by the class of the race, is contained in the table. 

Class Runners Hampered Hampered% 
1        25172     894           3.55 
2       36789     1221          3.32 
3       32536       909          2.79 
4       76255      1965         2.58 
5      115903     2830         2.44 
6      144333     3677         2.55 

Now, a good analyst will recognise there could be systematic bias in this data. Perhaps good races result in more tightly packed fields and jockeys save ground or seek cover with more zeal. There might also be some observer bias in this sample and it would be interesting to see if the result is reproducible using databases other than Proform (), but the outturn in the table would not be a surprise to a selection of racing professionals I sampled at Royal Ascot who responded to the question of whether interference-rates are higher in higher quality races. 

Riders are not to blame for the figures in the table. If better races are rougher races, it is a simple case of the economic incentive of prize-money and associated rewards being disaproportionately greater than the downside of suspension, etc. 
But there is more to it even than that. In my view, there is a creeping atmosphere of laissez faire in stewards’ rooms, continually encouraged by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA)’s Guide To Penalties and Procedures booklet which informs the actions of stewards and their stipendaries (www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/guide-to-penalties-and-procedures-2015.pdf) 

On page 17 of this document, section d) says: “….a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is a nose between horses.” 

This phrase is nothing more than a statement of the obvious, yet it seems to be interpreted as an instruction to stewards not to meddle with any result decided by a distance more than this. Last year, an incident at Ascot (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/30/escalating-ascot-controversial-interference-rules) provoked a typical reaction from the sport’s participants, but it was nothing on the curious case of the G2 Ribblesdale S. at Royal Ascot last week. 

Review the race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf3MvqQLQrE) before asking yourself if there is a country in the world in which Curvy would not have been taken down after she wiped out third-placed Pamona. Curvy’s rider Ryan Moore pushed his way out for the first time at 2:05 of the video before having some justification that his filly was intimidated by the errant path of rail runner Entertainment (white cap) at 2:07. 

It isn’t the case in the Ribblesdale that Curvy improved her placing, but the stewards did not even levy a riding penalty on Moore, reasoning (incorrectly in my view) that his actions were not purposeful. But, how else was he going to get a run? Are we led to believe that a gap opened purely as a result of the collision to the inside? I am not buying it. 
We should remember, of course, that Moore would likely not have even made this manouevre in another jurisdiction in which safety is more highly prioritised over the potential dismay of the betting public upon the disqualification of winners. He is well capable of adjusting his approach to the prevailing demands of the environment. 

Either way, Pamona lost her chance. All rules and laws have to strike a balance between the rights of the victim and the rights of the offender, but there is now a growing belief that in British racing this equilibrium is out of whack. 
The BHA interference rules are not actually impotent, but their implementation seems to be. It cannot be right that riders have no fear of censure the moment serious money and prestige is at stake. Other countries enforce tighter rules not just for safety, but also as an incentive to fair play. If it is tough for stewards to take a winner down, jockeys will respond by adjusting their strategy to exploit the situation, which the statistics above suggest that they have. 

Jockeys are crucial to the outcome of horse races. The brilliant Moore proved that again last week when breaking the modern record for winners at Royal Ascot with nine absolutely superb victories. Flat racing also has a need to ensure that jockeyship doesn’t become too big a factor, however, and that a robust attitude to competition doesn’t become a general indifference to the rules. 

Interference rules should not be seen as important only up to a point, but that’s the way they seem to be treated by the best jockeys in the best races in Britain. Thankfully, the situation is by no means out of hand, but it is high time the screws were tightened, in my view.