THE International Federation of Horseracing Authorities’ harmonisation of raceday rules committee met in Hong Kong during the week with a view to, well, furthering the harmonisation of raceday rules, which is essentially what harmonisation of raceday rules committees do.

It looks like they are almost there, even if it looks like France and Germany may not be a part of it. (It’s a Gerfrexit.)

We have read it before: basically, if, in the opinion of the relevant authority, a horse improves its position after causing the interference, it should be demoted; if it does not improve its position, it should not be demoted.

What we are still missing is the definition of the opinion of the relevant authority. How certain do they have to be that a horse did or did not improve its position? 51%? 75%? 100%?

To whom does the benefit of the doubt go?

In Britain, it still goes to the horse who caused the interference. We saw it once again after the two and a half mile novices’ handicap chase at Sandown last Friday, a race in which Pilgrims Bay passed the post first, a head in front of Antartica De Thaix.

The winner carried the runner-up across the track, almost certainly costing him far more than the head by which he was beaten.

They even bet odds-on the runner-up in the stewards’ enquiry. And yet, the horse that finished first past the post retained the race.

“If you gave the benefit of the doubt to the sufferer,” the head of stewarding said on Racing UK afterwards, “yes, there would be different outcomes to the enquiries. Looking on the scout view from behind, yes, clearly he (the winner) takes him (the runner-up) off his line. What we do at the moment, we give the benefit of the doubt to the interferer, people understand that.”

Allowing the benefit of the doubt go with the interferer surely goes against everything that the rules are in place to achieve.

It encourages riders to get to the winning post first, by whatever means are available to them, then take their chances in the stewards’ room, where they know the burden of proof rests on the victim.

It promotes the pass-the-winning-post-first-at-all-costs mentality, which can foster careless riding, even dangerous riding.

Fundamentally, it goes against common sense. You reward the perpetrator, you punish the victim, and that does not appear to be a logical way to be (still) going about things.