IN what is a bit of a lull for racing action, the case of the three-year-old filly who ran in, and won, a juvenile maiden at Yarmouth late last month, has been the focus of much discussion.

The case against Charlie McBride, who saddled the wrong horse at Yarmouth, was heard in front of a disciplinary panel on Thursday. That McBride was fined £1,500 was no surprise, but his cheerful statement to the press that he would pay a large chunk of that fine from money he won backing Mandarin Princess (who turned out to be older stablemate Millie’s Kiss) added an extra element of farce to what has been an embarrassing episode for British racing.

It’s important at this point to head off some wooden-headed accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the Newmarket trainer. The fact that McBride had a tenner on a horse he trained in a lowly novice auction stakes is in itself almost entirely irrelevant.

Many people cannot resist throwing a few bob at horses they are connected with, purely on the basis of a big price, and a trainer who believes he’s as capable as more fashionable names will see the fact that his newcomer is 10 times the price of one from a bigger yard as an insult to his ability. In short, McBride’s wager was perfectly normal in the circumstances of him training an outsider in a lowly auction contest.

If he was deliberately seeking to switch horses, and profit by doing so, it’s fair to say he’d probably want to risk more than a score, especially knowing he’d be risking his entire future by doing so. I think, therefore, that it’s safe to assume the bet itself is a red herring. What is of more importance is the fact that he mentioned the bet.

By pointing out that his initial mistake had enabled him to make a profit, McBride is rubbing salt into the wounds of those affected by his error; the BHA’s punishment looks considerably less of a deterrent now that it’s effectively been subsidised by others, and the many punters who lost out backing the odds-on runner-up will feel fresh anger at the revelation.

It’s not clear who laid the trainer that tenner each-way, but if it is one of the many bookmakers who felt pressured to pay out on both the winner and the second, then they are deserving of a special kind of sympathy in paying for the cock-up on two separate fronts.

If those parties aren’t annoyed enough at the ramifications of the “Millie’s Kiss Affair”, then the revelation that the two fillies look nothing like each other will probably push me over the edge. Given that most racegoers have never clapped eyes on the unfortunate Mandarin Princess, it has been assumed that she, like Millie’s Kiss, was a plain bay with no obvious markings.

SHOCKING

It was something of a shock to hear from BHA evidence that she has a white star on her forehead, a white snip on her nose and significant white markings on two legs. If that wasn’t damning enough, the panel chairman, Sir Patrick Milmo QC, opined that McBride had plenty of time to notice the obvious irregularities with the filly he assumed was Mandarin Princess, and the BHA’s opinion was that “anyone could tell them apart by sight”. Ouch.

The trainer trotted out the “buck stops with me” line after the hearing, but not before he’d pretty much absolved himself of blame for the actions of a very young and inexperienced member of staff who had led the wrong horse from the stables to the saddling boxes.

In a scenario where only a sincere expression of humility and regret might have gone any way in mitigation for a blunder of epic proportions, McBride’s levity and buckpassing do him, and his sport, no favours. If there is some cheer in the sorry episode, it’s been the willingness of BHA head honcho Nick Rust to engage on the issue of identification and take steps to ensure what happened at Yarmouth will not be repeated.

Initially, there was talk about how scanning horses as they entered the parade ring would entail a “seven-figure” sum to bring to fruition, an estimate which did at least raise the first giggle of the affair, but sense has finally prevailed, and Rust deserves credit for being seen to take corrective action, for all it remains easy to criticise the authority for being reactive rather than proactive in such matters.