THERE was down-to-the-wire drama last Saturday for those watching TV as the clock moved to 12 midnight.

The final audience vote in the Eurovision Song Contest denied Israel a controversial win while on the racetrack in America, Journalism was pulling out a dramatic win in the Preakness Stakes!

In all that drama, another story was missed by many on the Irish tracks. A five-horse novice chase with an odds-on favourite at Wexford might have been the last place you were looking for the news story of the day, but there it had unfolded.

Ted Walsh was fined €3,000 over an alleged non-trier when Ta Na La finished second in a novice chase to the odds-on winner Aspire Tower, Shane O’Callaghan was banned for 14 racedays, and Ta Na La suspended from running for 60 days under the provisions of Rule 212C(D).

My first reaction was how could a 16/1 shot outrunning his odds to come second to an odds-on favourite be classed as a non-trier? Achieve the best possible placing? Sure he must have been trying more than anyone had expected at those odds. It’s hardly a place to be hiding a non-trier in a five-runner novice chase with an odds-on favourite.

A look on social media, where outcries develop rapidly these days, didn’t throw up many comments.

On reviewing the last few furlongs of the race, things are a bit more debatable. In commentary, on the run to the final bend, Gary O’Brien notes that Ta Na La is “…still appearing to have a little bit left...” A slow jump by the Walsh runner at the second last allows Aspire Tower to gain a few lengths.

Though the second runs on, there is no great encouragement from the saddle and she finishes second by four and a half lengths, but eight lengths ahead of the 3/1 shot Foxy Girl.

Was the punishment justified? An appeal has been lodged by Ted Walsh. Would Ta Na La would have won with a ‘stronger’ ride? I’m not sure she would, but the stewards make the decision on what was a “reasonable effort”.

In the French Guineas disqualification, there was definite interference, Shes Perfect caused it, the margin was a nose, Zarigana would have won if she was allowed run in a straight line to the finish. But social media and indeed some long-standing racing professionals were of strongly differing opinions on that result and appeal.

High profile

Another ‘non-trier’ case this season was at Clonmel in mid-February where raceday stewards fined Eric McNamara €6,000, suspended Conor McNamara for 40 days and Mount Ferns from running for 90 days under the provisions of that Rule 212C(D).

The visuals were not good there, no ‘encouragement’ was given with the whip in the final few furlongs and it appeared that the horse was not ridden to achieve the best possible position. This did get more comments on the social channels.

But the appeal was successful on the basis that videos and documentation confirmed that Mount Ferns was lame on returning home and again when examined the following day and the rider stated that his instructions were to deliver a late challenge but Mount Ferns was a difficult ride and has previously had issues with hanging to the right.

The problem is, can we as punters, accept a trainer telling a jockey, as was reported in the Ta Na La case, not to use his whip? Surely, he cannot be fully trying if he is not using all the aids available to him? Rule 212 requires the jockey to make “timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible place”.

Another enquiry

I had a look back at another enquiry following another controversial finish of recent weeks, when J.P. McManus-owned horses Park That (11/10 favourite, Jody McGarvey) and Powerful (3/1, Simon Torrens) fought out a finish at Kilbeggan.

This too got a lot of attention as many felt the second could have been given a stronger ride in the closing stages. No sanctions were imposed.

In the enquiry, Torrens said he was “doing the best he could on a horse who would not respond to using the whip”. The whip was deliberately not used. Who knew the horse would not respond? Should such information be recorded, pre-race?

The trainer’s rep “confirmed instructions given and expressed her satisfaction with ride”.

Veterinary evidence was taken into account of ‘a small wound on outside of his right fore and noted a righthand side cardiac murmur’ though the rider would hardly have known of any such issues, and not taken them into account when riding a finish. Another race to gain attention last Saturday was Jim Crowley’s effort on Al Aasy at Newbury, again sparing the whip. Too much whip, not enough whip. Both can result in penalties!

The debates continue. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

THE classic scene is still a little muddied and this weekend should give a bit of clarity to the mile divisions. Was Field Of Gold unlucky at Newmarket? He has the chance to show what he is made of today.

With only two wins in the last nine years, Ballydoyle have not been as successful as you might expect in the ‘home’ classic. While Aidan O’Brien seemed to have contenders in abundance early in the spring, no one thought Officer would emerge as their leading Curragh Guineas contender. Twain is on the easy list, the two French Guineas horses have other targets. Expanded was their only representative and sent off third favourite at 5/1 for the English Guineas, but finished ninth of the 11. Now he is double-figure odds for today’s race. Officer, though he worked that morning, was not on our stable tour list following the Ballydoyle media morning at the end of March.

It should be Field Of Gold’s day but at the odds, the each-way value is probably Rashabar. Just touched off in the Qatar Prix Jean-Luc Lagardere, where Field Of Gold was behind him, his Newbury reappearance was pretty decent and the winner there ran well in the French Guineas. There might be a little stamina doubt but, at 16/1, I’d prefer his chance to some of those shorter.