IT’S been a funny few weeks for British racing, with strange races and even stranger strategies causing a kerfuffle by watercoolers up and down the land. Some of these incidents have caused more furore than others, of course, and the big talking point at the moment is the use of pacemakers in Group 1 races. The BHA Rules are clear as to what is and isn’t acceptable when a horse runs for the purpose of making the pace for another in the same stable or ownership:

Rule F (46)

A Jockey must not ride in such a way which is intended to, or does, give an advantage to or is in the interests of a horse which:

shares one or more Owners in common with; or

is from the same stable or team as the horse they are riding in the Race.

A Trainer is also responsible for any breach of Rule (F)46 by a Jockey riding one of their horses, except where they can demonstrate that they instructed the Jockey to treat every other horse in the Race equally.

Nothing in these rules prohibits pure pace making.

We’ve had two races in recent weeks in which a pacemaker, sent off at 150/1 both times, has been ignored in its role as pacemaker, with the result that the horse in question has been able to set up a decisive lead. Qirat, with the help of an opposing pacemaker, was able to win the Sussex Stakes in this scenario while Birr Castle was at one point an estimated 27 lengths ahead of his rivals in the Juddmonte International earlier this week, eventually finishing third having traded as short as 2/1 in the run.

The International was an unsatisfactory race, but not one that is hard to decipher, with Birr Castle getting the run of the race and flattered by his proximity, despite himself going slightly too fast through the middle part of that race.

The others, including winner Ombudsman, were ridden in contrasting fashion and in no position to gain any benefit from the pacemaker, other than the fact that Godolphin effectively had an insurance policy in place.

At Goodwood, the only rider who didn’t ignore Qirat was Wayne Lordan on the Ballydoyle pacemaker, who ended up acting as a pacemaker for the pacemaker, being rushed up after a slow start to give Qirat something to aim at in the straight. Once again, we got an unsatisfactory race, but this time with an unsatisfactory result to go with it.

There have been periodic calls for the use of pacemakers to be banned on the back of such episodes, but while the races in question don’t necessarily sit well with the viewer, it’s important to point out that both races would likely have been very messy without the pacemakers as well. In reality, we hope in a situation where pacemakers are used, the chances of a slow pace and a messy race are reduced, but if the other jockeys are simply going to ignore the front-runners, then we end up with the same scenario, with the added possibility that the hounds will fail to catch the hare.

Up with the pace

In truth, pacemakers work best when there is already pace in the race, with their role to ramp up that pace if it looks like slacking, as with the King George & Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot in 1975 when Grundy beat Bustino, despite the latter utilising two pacemakers in sequence in a race run at a brutal gallop throughout.

What made that race such an epic is that, while it was the handicappers Kinglet and Highest who set the searing gallop for a mile, the other jockeys didn’t want to sit out of their ground, with Bustino and Grundy close up in a chasing pack that did not let the leaders get away.

These days, it’s just as likely that a pacemaker will be used to get to the front and slow the pace to benefit a stablemate with a turn of foot and/or suspect stamina, but either way, the crucial thing is that they cannot be ignored, and the races above which have flirted with farce have panned out the way they have because that unwritten rule has been ignored.

Should pacemakers be banned? Absolutely not, in my view, but they need to be used judiciously, not just by their own trainers/jockeys but by others in the race. Where a pacemaker is there to break the pace up, rather than ensure a solid gallop, the opposition must be smart enough to anticipate that and to have a plan to overcome it. That is simply sport and racing cannot be immune from dealing with race management from trainers and riders. At the same time, the BHA need to give robust guidance regarding what is considered to constitute providing assistance to another runner to avoid repeats of alleged “team tactics” of the past.

Recall man

In terms of robust guidance, the BHA got it spot on when a recent race at Windsor was declared void after the apprentice riders involved ignored the recall man who was correctly waving his flag and blowing his whistle in front of the runners down the course. There has been some sympathy for the severity of the bans handed out, and I can understand that, but I can’t believe that they were unaware of the recall man, as they stated in the inquiry.

This isn’t the first time such an incident has happened despite stop-race procedures being employed correctly, and I spoke to a couple of trainers after a similar incident at Sandown a few years ago. I was surprised to hear one of them say that he tells his jockeys that, if they see a stop-race flag or hear the whistle that denotes the same issue, they should simply keep riding, on the basis that maybe it isn’t what it appears to be and by ignoring it they might win.

I won’t name the trainer, but I was absolutely stunned by the stupidity of his comments, and it occurred to me that he’s probably not alone in his thinking. So, while it’s hard to understand why a group of jockeys would ignore a clear signal to stop riding, it’s easier to comprehend if they are getting conflicting advice from their guv’nors. That is a dangerous state of affairs, in my view.