THE long-running saga of the Jim Best disciplinary hearing concluded last Monday, a fitting day in a way, as in terms of the racing calendar, it was exactly a year since the affair began with the running and riding of Echo Brava at Plumpton. We’ve covered the details of this sorry affair often enough, but the verdict of the second disciplinary panel adds a final flourish to the story of the year, and there is plenty to mull over in the words of panel chairman Sir William Gage.

First things first – where the original judgment was correctly challenged over the inadequacy of the panel’s published reasons (as well as the appearance of bias in using Matthew Lohn as chairman), the same argument could not be levelled at the panel’s written submission in respect of the rehearing.

I expressed doubts about how likely it would be for a new panel to come to similar conclusions given the BHA’s decision to press ahead with Paul John as the sole witness for the prosecution, but to give credit to Gage et al, they were able to deal with the thorny issue of both John and Best appearing as less than reliable in their testimony. There was a real clarity of approach which isolated the two big questions that needed to be answered.

Firstly, were Echo Brava and Missile Man stopped? This is a question which has never caused much anxiety for amateur race-readers and has been answered resoundingly in the positive. It’s fair to say that this is what the original panel referred to quaintly as “the gravamen of these matters” back in April, and putting the question to one side might have derailed the whole case.

Secondly, the panel asked, who decided to stop the horses? Once that question was asked, and however dubious John appeared as a witness, the answer was probably going to be that the stopping was done at the behest of the trainer.

I think most people were satisfied with the verdict arrived at by the panel, but there was some consternation at the sentence, with the vast majority considering that a six-month suspension of Best’s licence was inappropriately lenient and taken at face value it is.

That’s not to say that the panel was incorrect to come to that conclusion and I must say that I’m largely in agreement with their reasons, citing the real damage done to Best’s credibility since the initial verdict, but more crucially pointing out that their sentence was broadly in line with the BHA’s own Guide to Procedures and Penalties, and suggesting that if a stronger punishment was sought, there needed to be a precedent for delivering it.

Once again, the authority have been damaged by a case which should have served to bolster its reputation for maintaining integrity and the rules themselves are at the crux of the problem.

STOPPING HORSES

Ever since racing was established as a competitive sport, trainers have been instructing jockeys to stop horses. That is a bald truth which many would attempt to qualify but few would deny. There is no place in the sport for those who flagrantly carry on this practice and that is not something which many will argue against either.

How, then, can the rules by which the sport attempts to keep itself from such iniquity fail so disastrously to deal with wrongdoing at this fundamental level? Best has been found guilty on two counts under rule (C) 45. One would like to think this rule would be unequivocal in its wording, and with appropriate penalty appended, but in reality it is generic in nature, and an absolute mess to navigate.

Rule (C) 45 deals with instructions given to jockeys but talks about inadequate instruction as if it is dealing purely with a sin of omission. That is frequently accurate, of course, and trainers are often guilty of sending riders out without adequate instructions in the case of horses who are not expected, for valid enough reasons, to be competitive. There is a world of difference between ensuring that an inexperienced racehorse isn’t overfaced (accepting that doing so may still constitute an offence) and deliberately preventing a horse from running on its merits. The latter must be held up a separate, and much more insidious offence, and be dealt with accordingly.

TRAINERS’ PENALTIES

It is absolutely beggars belief that the way the rules are written mean that a trainer who deliberately ensures that horses in his care are stopped from running on their merits is not in recommended to be punished by means of suspension or revocation of his licence. If you’re reading that and thinking “that must be a mistake”, I’m afraid not. It is recommended that a jockey is suspended for six weeks in the case of a first offence, and for a young rider that can be disastrous, but for a trainer who deliberately orchestrates cheating in this regard, especially when he is also able to use a vulnerable rider as a tool to this end, a financial penalty is deemed more appropriate.

That, my friends, is just plain bonkers. The panel is, of course, allowed to step beyond those boundaries where it is deemed appropriate, and this was at the crux of the original sentence, but at the same time the guidelines have been devised to cover standard circumstances, and this instance should not be seen as exceptional.

I would contend that Jim Best is far from the first trainer to utilise an inexperienced rider for the express purpose of stopping horses, and for that reason there must be a rule which targets such behaviour specifically, and the punishment for those guilty of it must be severe, and unequivocal.

The integrity of the sport and the protection of those who are misused by unscrupulous trainers depends on it.