THE Diego Du Charmil thing has divided opinion like few other incidents in racing in recent times. Entrenched views on both sides. It’s Diegoducharmilxit.

You can see why the decision to allow Paul Nicholls’ horse keep the race was the ‘easy’ decision, but that doesn’t mean that it was the correct decision. You can easily argue that Diego Du Charmil was the best horse in the race on the day, and that carries a lot of weight in horse racing. We know by now that the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the best horse in the race in this part of the world. And you can easily argue that he completed the course.

And there is the fact that both Diego Du Charmil and Capeland are trained by Paul Nicholls. It may not have come into it, but how unlucky would it have been if the trainer who had the two best horses in the race - by some way - ended up having both horses disqualified?

Right decision?

The decision taken was the decision of least resistance. Diego Du Charmil’s connections were not going to feel aggrieved, that’s for sure. And Capeland’s trainer was not going to feel aggrieved. And runner-up Clondaw Castle’s connections cannot have felt wronged. Clondaw Castle would have finished third at best without the incident, he ended up finishing second, so how bad would it have appeared if his connections had come out and said that they should have been awarded the race?

Capeland’s owner Kathy Stuart, and his rider Bryony Frost (and his backers) are justified in feeling hard done-by, in that they were deprived of the chance of winning the race, and in knowing that they would have finished second at worst. However, there is nothing that the stewards could have done for them in the aftermath of the race, given how things had panned out. Hugely unfortunate though it was, Capeland did not complete the course. It wasn’t his fault, but he couldn’t have been awarded a finishing position.

And if you throw Diego Du Charmil out, where do you put him, given that the horse that he hampered did not finish?

So it was the easy decision, but it surely wasn’t the correct decision. Diego Du Charmil deprived Capeland of the chance of winning the race. Whether or not the jockey did or didn’t do anything wrong shouldn’t be relevant, nor should the fact that Capeland consequently didn’t complete the course. It is possible, as Tom Segal suggested in the Racing Post during the week, that the stewards became so preoccupied with deciding whether or not Diego Du Charmil had completed the course, that they didn’t really get into the question of interference.

If Capeland had jumped the fence, and had been placed fifth officially, would Diego Du Charmil have been demoted and placed behind him?

Food for thought

Two other things to consider. Firstly, the stewards’ report says that, as Capeland had been disqualified for taking the wrong course, the stewards were unable to consider the placings in respect of the interference. That seems like a bizarre state of being.

And secondly, if Capeland had jumped the fence and finished second, you have to think that he would have been awarded the race, that the places would have been reversed. But you never know. We are only four years on from the Sire De Grugy/Special Tiara Tingle Creek Chase, and the he-would-have-won-anyway train of thought seems to be even stronger now than it was then.