ONE of the most perplexing decisions I have come across in racing in recent years was made this week by the British Horseracing Authority. It concerned the fact that they made a decision not to proceed with a decision they had made previously. Confused? I am too.

Next week, on February 1st, a new rule was due to come into effect, requiring all National Hunt runners to race fully shod. The decision to introduce the rule followed a two-year process of consultation with bodies such as the National Trainers Federation and the Professional Jockeys Association. It also involved the evaluation of a myriad of data.

Among the data was the fact that 98% of all runners in jump races already do so fully shod, without a rule in place. This would, to the man in the street, appear to indicate that there is no problem with the practice, and that the policy is endorsed by the vast majority of trainers.

The 2% of runners who are not fully shod are eight times more likely to slip. Which horse would you prefer to ride in the circumstances? I know I would like mine with four shoes.

The requirement to be fully shod is in place on the flat and there have been no adverse outcomes. Exemptions are allowed on legitimate veterinary grounds, a reasonable allowance one would imagine. The jockeys’ representative body advocated the introduction of the rule, and continue to support it.

What is the problem I hear you ask? With days to go the BHA has deferred the introduction, allowing up to six months for further discussion, data gathering, analysis of any slips that occur, and to receive further evidence from trainers and their representative body. It’s enough to make you want to scream with frustration.

If such a palaver is taking place over such a straightforward matter, one wonders who is in charge of racing? The BHA is the regulatory authority for horse racing in Britain. A regulatory body is responsible for exercising autonomous authority over some area of activity in a regulatory or supervisory capacity. In other words, it is in charge.

A handful of persons who question a decision is quite normal, but it rarely means that it disrupts its introduction. Maybe it depends on who the voices are.

If the latter is the case, then even more shame on the regulatory body for caving in, even temporarily, on the matter.

I am no expert on the shoeing of horses, or the efficacy of shoes. However, the evidence was pretty unambiguous in my opinion and this decision, minor in ways, shows a major weakness in the authority of the BHA.