ON Thursday, Nicola Currie was successful in her appeal against a 10-day ban handed down by the Lingfield stewards for her ride on Tojosimbre in a two-mile handicap at the track just over a week earlier. Currie finished fourth aboard the Richard Hughes-trained runner after meeting trouble in running a crucial stage.

There was widespread surprise that the ride, while showing some tactical naivety, should be punished with a ban given how many similar incidences there are on an almost daily basis, with the unfortunate Currie caught behind weakening rivals when making her initial move towards the inside of the track, a manoeuvre which saves ground, but always runs the risk of trouble in running.

There are questions to be asked about why this ride in particular came in for censure when more senior jockeys make similar tactical blunders without any questions being asked, but the really pressing question here has nothing to do with the ride at all, but focuses purely on the film evidence.

The appeals panel found that for parts of the race, Currie and her partner were out of camera shot, and it was clear that there could not be a watertight case against her given her actions at potentially crucial stages of the contest were unobserved.

There is a precedent for this successful appeal, and embarrassingly for the BHA, it was provided by Graeme McPherson, who has often acted as prosecuting counsel for the authority while also holding a licence to train.

Some years ago, Jodie Mogford, riding for the McPherson stable, was handed a similar ban at Chepstow for not taking all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing aboard Traditional Bob, and McPherson himself was fined £3,000 under the non-triers rule; like the Tojosimbre case, the runner in question was an outsider against a warm favourite, and was held up before staying on late, and as with the current case, the film footage of the race concentrated on the leaders at certain stages, leaving the Chepstow stewards to guess whether Mogford was nursing a tired mount or failing to make an effort on a horse with more to give, with the trainer arguing that it was unfair to judge the ride based on such incomplete information.

It didn’t take McPherson long to persuade the appeals panel that there could be no case for him to answer, and while the trainer’s defence didn’t lie solely with the limitations of the footage, it was an important aspect of the case.

The obvious upshot of this scenario is that stewards should have guidance which states that they cannot find a rider guilty of making insufficient effort if they are unable to ascertain such information in full from the race video.

There will be scenarios where a case can be made based on partial footage, such as that of a rider dropping his/her hands, but cases where the entire ride is being judged require all the evidence to be available.

This is pretty basic stuff, and it helps those governing the sport not one jot if they are seen to be sitting on their hands in cases where running-and-riding enquiries appear necessary but are ignored, only for cases they do pursue to fail through lack of rigour.

Currie’s ride was enough to justify a call to the stewards’ room, and it would have been appropriate to ask her about her instructions and to point out that she could have finished closer with greater awareness of what was happening around her.

It’s possible that something might have come to light in what she said (a young German jockey about 20 years ago is reputed to have told the stewards her instructions where to “jump off last and stay there, so the horse would receive a lenient handicap mark” so it’s always worth a try), but in the absence of further information coming to light, and knowing full well that the jockey’s ride in its entirety could not be judged, it was foolhardy to make a decision to ban her.

That’s quite aside from the argument about whether or not her ride was ill-judged on the whole – at least one eminent judge of form has suggested that she gave Tojosimbre a better ride in terms of economy of effort than did any other jockey bar that of the winner.

CONTENTIOUS SUBJECT

Stewarding will always be a contentious subject, as evidenced by the fact that almost every incident which is picked up on tends to spark heated debate.

Whatever decision the stewards make will be railed against by either a vocal majority, or a very vocal minority. Even when they call it correctly, they can’t get it right in the eyes of the aggrieved parties, be they jockeys, trainers, owners or punters.

Many of the decisions made will come down to force of opinion, but in order to avoid mistakes, it’s crucial that matters which are not subject to opinion are adhered to first.

The stewards have a long list of guidelines which can introduce red flags to proceedings, and “can you actually see what’s happening?” really should be very high up on that list.

For those who like such moral tales to end on a note of delicious irony, it will be pleasing to read that Nicola Currie signed off on Thursday by winning at Chelmsford aboard a horse called Justice Rock.