Cliff Williams

I was recently engaged in a discussion over stewarding and what is taken into account in making a determination of how and when riding offences are to be treated in the effort to ensure fair play.

As I understand it, in making a decision operation stewards cannot and ought not to take betting into account and should only be concerned in ensuring that justice is done in cases of interference. Meaning that, if through interference a horse does not achieve its best possible placing then the stewards should act appropriately.

The discussion was triggered by the disqualification of a well-fancied runner for interference to another starting at much longer odds with the general perception that it is not likely to win or place.

In this particular instance the unfancied runner finished well down the track and out of position for a purse. What this means in effect is that the owners of the offended horse can in no way benefit from the disqualification of the offending horse. On the surface of it this seems logical but in my view it is almost a flawed way of trying to ensure fair play.

Lower position

Generally when a horse is relegated by disqualification to a lower position it is invariably placed behind the particular horse suffering the hindrance and in certain instances the offender placed last depending on the multiplier effect or severity of the offence.

Here is my problem with this approach and it does not matter that this view goes against the policy that has prevailed in the more than two centuries of organised horseracing. As I pointed earlier, if the offended horse cannot benefit in any way from the disqualification then there needs to be another way to ensure that justice is done.

It cannot be justly deemed that because of interference the backers of the offending horse have to be treated in what is a patently unfair manner. I think the fact that an offending horse has beaten others in the race on merit has to be taken into account. In my view, irrespective of interference, the backers of the offending horse can and ought to receive justice where possible.

No material benefit

To my mind, this is all that needs to happen to ensure justice. In circumstances where the offended horse would get no material benefit from a disqualification, the placing of the offending horse should remain for the purposes of dividends and the purse position prize awarded to the offended horse. Using this approach both the bettors and the owners of the offended horse would receive justice. This would also have the effect of ensuring that no other horse benefits unduly from any such disqualification.

I can just see the operation stewards being very dismissive of this idea and advancing the argument that the jockeys would begin to behave as if it's open season and foul riding would become the order of the day, but this is highly unlikely. Truth be told, jockeys have more respect for their fellow professionals than any other practitioners in any other field of sporting endeavour. I am now waiting to hear a persuasive argument that what I have proposed is not infinitely fairer than what has prevailed for significantly more than two centuries.