THE return of Gordon Elliott to the ranks has caused much ruffling of feathers, as it was sure to, but there is no discussion to be had.

Some will paint Elliott as the victim of a lynch mob, pointing fingers at the ethereal media and the BHA, while others will insist on characterising him as a monster despite a concerted muckraking campaign failing to unearth any significant skeletons.

Public opinion is more polarised than ever on almost every topic due to the winnowing quality of social media, and if we can’t judge Gordon Elliott, we can certainly have a damn fine go at judging those who do judge him. Neither extreme is right, of course.

Embarrassment

The incident which precipitated Gordon Elliott’s six-month ban was one of appalling juxtaposition rather than wrongdoing in any legal framework, but it caused colleagues in the industry a great deal of embarrassment because of the opportunity it gave for negative publicity.

He made a monumental error of judgment, and he was punished for that, for which he can’t – and hasn’t – complained, and now he’s come back having served his time out of the spotlight.

If you think Elliott is uncouth and an unsuitable guest for your next dinner party, then don’t feel the need to invite him, but if you feel than someone who has had to deal with public humiliation might have gained a perspective which you’d like to listen to, then stick him on your list.

It all depends upon your perspective, and perspective is an important thing to have in such circumstances.

Doping denial

The BHA’s stance on doping appears less than robust after a couple of cases in which horses had to be withdrawn by the stewards having been administered substances other than normal feed and water on the day they were due to race. In one of those cases a syringe was reported to have screening findings for multiple prohibited substances.

That should ring alarm bells, but neither case was heard formally, but rather dealt with through the BHA’s fast track system, with a standard fine of £1,000 issue to both trainers involved.

It’s important to highlight that the case involving the prohibited substances saw the horse involved give a negative dope test, and that screening and diagnostic testing are very different processes, but whether it is appropriate to deal with cases such as these by fast-tracking them is open to debate.

It seems to be the view of the BHA that the prohibited substances indicated were something of an anomaly, and they argue that testing the contents of the syringe is pointless as the horse in question was negative.

In my view, it would be of more benefit to the trainer involved had there been an official dope test carried out on that syringe, so that a negative finding could have cleared up any lingering doubt of innocence. Testing works both ways, after all.

What’s more concerning is that the BHA appear to think “no comment” is an appropriate response when the reputations of trainers is at stake. In the absence of verifiable information, innuendo will always fill the vacuum.

That does not help things, and the regulator needs to be seen to be drawing such incidents to a satisfactory conclusion rather than giving the appearance of merely drawing a veil over them.