THE result of the Noble Emperor appeal wasn’t quite a formality, but the exoneration of connections over the running and riding of the horse at Limerick earlier in the month came as a surprise to nobody.

It seems to me that local stewards are either unwilling or unable to deal with a spate of minor riding offences, and only occasionally rise up to make a statement of intent, as the original decision to ban Barry Geraghty for 30 days and Noble Emperor for 60 could be described.

The problem with making such a statement, which is presumably meant as a shot across the bows of all participants reminding them that they should be seen to be putting in the effort, is that the end can’t justify the means. When looking back at the Limerick race, it’s crucial not simply to ask whether Geraghty’s tactics on the runner-up were adequate on the day (they were not), but to ask whether the ride was deliberately injudicious, such that the horse might gain a lenient handicap mark for example. In this case, it’s hard to reach that conclusion and the punishment dished out is almost exclusively the domain of maidens under both codes given tender rides on their way to handicaps.

As the rules are written, it would have made much more sense to keep Tony Martin and J.P. McManus out of the equation entirely and dealing with the concept that Geraghty’s ride behind a front-running course specialist was an ill-judged ride and punishing it accordingly. By dragging owner and trainer through the mud, the charge appears not to be one of a handicapping nature, but seems to suggest that the intention was to lose for the sake of losing, which is a much more dangerous accusation indeed.

Given that unintended slur, it’s hardly surprising that the appeal board chose to exonerate all three men rather than maintain some sort of ban for the rider, which might have been understandable. It was a fair comment to make that the race was lost very early in proceedings, although the notion that the other riders expected Velocity Boy to stop in front as he’d done so in the past isn’t borne out by the winner’s record and his aggressive style is clearly well suited to Limerick, where he is unbeaten in three runs.

In hindsight, it may prove that the others had little chance however the race was run, but the rules are there to ensure that they are seen to be given every chance, and that’s not how the race panned out.

SUCCESS OF APPEALS

It has been pointed out elsewhere that there was only one ban handed out by local stewards in Ireland in 2015 which wasn’t either reduced or overturned on appeal, and that is a stunning figure, as is the fact that well over half of all riding bans handed out in recent years have been moderated or overturned on appeal. This shows that occasional grandstanding by racecourse stewards is totally ineffective, and if the authorities are keen to clamp down on perceived misdemeanors, they need to find a more effective approach.

It seems there is a movement to tackle a trend in running-and-riding inconsistencies from some of the more powerful strings in Ireland, with a spate of McManus-owned horses singled out at Fairyhouse in November, but this insistence in sending out a big message simply doesn’t work.

There is a perfectly robust set of rules in place regarding what is expected of the participants in races, and if the Turf Club want to ensure that those rules are adhered to, they simply need to start policing them on a micro level – handing out small bans and fines when appropriate rather than persistently ignoring eyecatching runners, and by applying something akin to a zero-tolerance policy with minor infringements week in and week out, they will find it easier to both identify and effectively punish more serious breaches of the rules when they happen.

On the subject of the rules, I hope to have a full update here in weeks to come of the point I raised regarding the decision of the Newbury stewards to allow a horse declared to race in eyeshields to do so in blinkers instead. The notion that headgear can be switched in this way is something which concerns me greatly, as it’s of paramount importance that the information which appears on racecards and their digital equivalents should be correct.

Any changes made post-publication are likely detrimental to the way the sport is perceived by punters. I’ve had quite a constructive conversation about this with the BHA, but that remains ongoing, and I won’t pre-empt the final outcome by talking too much about it here.