THEY say rules are made to be broken, and I doubt there’s a jockey riding who hasn’t indulged in some form of punting over the years, if only for a side bet in the weighing room through boredom.” The words come from the opening page of Graham Bradley’s autobiography, infamously titled The Wayward Lad, and their veracity has not really been challenged. The context is the episode when a young Brad was caught placing a bet in the silver ring at Cartmel on a day he was riding, but not in a race where he was due to take part in, and the subject of his coup was a raging-hot favourite in a bad handicap which half the north of England could, and did, spot.

Brad got a two-month ban for his sins, which he likened to having his hands cut off, only with saltier language, and liberal use of CAPITAL LETTERS (sic). He will always remember the date that verdict was delivered, as it came just two days after he had ridden Bregawn to win the 1982 Hennessy Gold Cup.

TURNER BAN

Fast forward to the present day, and we are once again faced with headlines about a high-profile jockey copping a ban for betting, only this time it’s a murkier picture. Hayley Turner was banned for three months for placing a series of small bets online after initially retiring from the saddle, but in breach as she had renewed her licence to take part in the Shergar Cup. Although not riding at the time her betting account was active; the rules are clear that licensed riders are not allowed to bet on racing, without exception.

The BHA’s Chief Regulatory officer Jamie Stier said: “It is simply not appropriate for the public’s perception of the sport’s integrity that those who are licensed to ride in races should be able to bet on the sport, even on races in which they are not participating.”

FLUTTER

There is a fair bit to take from this, although the case is not really as controversial as the coverage will suggest. Turner likes a flutter, although the fact that she is reported to have won just £160 since opening that online account suggests that her betting was, as every bookmaker would prefer, purely recreational. She did not, and does not pose a threat to the integrity of the sport, but as I have said here before, there is no point having a set of rules if you choose to apply them only to people you disapprove of. Rules must be applied without fear or favour, and the view that public perception of the sport is of paramount importance means that a suspension was almost a formality. The length of that suspension is lenient in terms of the options available, with the entry point being an 18-month ban.

The question, as is often the case, isn’t whether the rules have been applied fairly, but whether the rules themselves are fair in the first place. It seems bizarre that Turner, whose betting coincided with her stints as a TV pundit, was deserving of a suspension of her licence, when trainer Dave Evans, who effectively colluded with a bookmaker for financial gain, to the undeniable detriment of the sport, was given a small fine.

AMATEURS

Should Turner want to appeal, that consideration will be of no use to her, but it does show that the weight of the law is unfairly exerted on riders, or should I say jockeys, because the arcane sport of horseracing still distinguishes between gentlemen and players when it comes to those who ride. Consider the unequivocal stance on betting and public perception, and ask yourself how that tallies with the rules for amateur riders (read gentlemen), which would deem what Turner has done to be no offence at all. The rule for amateur riders states merely that they must not bet on races in which they participate, which poses the question, why should we consider it detrimental to the public image of horseracing for jockeys to bet in events they have no control over, but not amateurs? The implication is that you can trust a gentleman, but not a player. Amateur riders may turn out to be cads, bounders or even plain old rotters, but they will always be gentlemen.