IT’S been a good week for semantics, if nothing else, and it’s struck me how the way different people use familiar words has always had the potential for miscommunication, and a few have cropped up this week which are worth exploring.

Free will is not the kind of thing you expect to discuss on a racecourse, or a term you’d expect to use when discussing racecourse events, but that’s what happened last weekend after a minor fine was handed out for a similarly minor rules breach at Uttoxeter on Saturday.

In the first instance, the stewards acted properly within their powers in enforcing a seemingly little-understood rule, but one which is there to be enforced.

I can’t help feeling that we would have head no more about it if the report hadn’t specifically stated what the trainer had been fined for, but merely cited the rule he was in breach of (this incident to be known henceforth as “Armgate”).

CLARIFY

Even then, this would have passed had the BHA’s press office not sought to clarify the situation by explaining why the rule existed, but merely brought an accidentally philosophical slant to matters by suggesting that horses must race “of their own free will”.

That statement did at least add some levity to the occasion, and was therefore amended.

The rule in question bans trainers from encouraging their horses to cross the starting line, and the concept of encouragement is another one which is open to interpretation.

Encouragement comes, of course, in two forms. One involves praising the object of the encouragement as well as offering reward for good behaviour – the carrot, while the other involves a rather more hands-on approach to getting the job done, and the threat of punishment for non-compliance – the stick.

Ironically enough, a trainer whispering sweet nothings into the ear of his beloved nag, or using his hands to demonstrate how big the evening’s haynet will be is deemed encouragement of the illegal variety, but a smack or two on the backside from his jockey falls into the acceptable bracket.

DEFINITION

If there are going to be policies about the degree to which horses are encouraged, then it’s probably best to be clear which definition is being used.

It is encouraging, at least, that the BHA haven’t thrown whoever made that Twitter faux-pas under the bus “pour l’encourager les autres” which is another kind of encouragement altogether. I’m not entirely sure they have the autres to spare, if I’m honest.

Finally, and on another matter, the definition of the terms buzzer and jigger have been brought up in relation to recent action in Warrnambool, where such items have been seized by police searching a major racing yard as a result of a wide-ranging investigation.

In Australia, a jigger is a hand-held device designed to provide an electric shock to a horse, such that the horse will be encouraged (see above) to run faster. In the US, this device is generally known as a buzzer.

We don’t have much truck with shocking horses here – other than showing them their current handicap mark – and while the terms are in use, they are generic words used to describe horses who are trying their best.

It’s the non-jiggers we are more worried about, but short of spotting a trainer waving his arms while standing in front of his charge at the start, they can be tricky to identify.