MY colleague Mark Boylan has written about the latest controverse du jour in British racing, which is the delayed disqualification of Alphonse Le Grande after finishing first past the post in last Saturday’s Cesarewitch at Newmarket.

He makes the excellent point that what was put off until Tuesday could have been sorted on the day, with the delay unsatisfactory for connections of both the disqualified winner and the promoted race winner Manxman, with Jamie Powell, Cathy O’Leary and the syndicate which owns Alphonse Le Grande living like those condemned to the gallows and hoping against hope for a last-minute reprieve.

The Crisfords, Rabbah Racing and Sean Dylan Bowen eventually got the verdict, but were denied that moment of euphoria that only comes in the moment of victory, and I was reminded of the infamous 1980 Cheltenham Gold Cup where Master Smudge’s owner/trainer was almost presented with the trophy in a motorway service station before someone stepped in to provide a more appropriate solution.

Admire the trophy

Some will have little sympathy with Manxman’s connections – after all, they were awarded the race and can admire the trophy on the sideboard, but there wouldn’t be many owners in the sport if victory could not be celebrated spontaneously, and I understand why the way in which the result was changed was unsatisfactory all round.

I say all round, but we haven’t considered the punter, exemplified by Racing TV pundit Dave Nevison, who was pretty cheesed off to have backed Manxman win only and original seventh Anna Bunina each-way (six places – you know the drill).

Mr Nevison will get over the injustice, but plenty of other punters will also have lost out on bets that could feasibly have been sorted on the day.

It’s in considering the punter that I have my gravest misgivings about this case, however.

It’s a lot easier claiming punters have been robbed when the belatedly disqualified winner is 33/1 and the second is the well-backed second favourite but imagine if that was the other way around.

Or better still, imagine a scenario where a well-backed horse wins a big race – the Grand National for example – and he doesn’t win by a nose, but by 10 lengths, and his rider still breaks the whip rules to the same extent. Get a good mental picture, as Mrs Doyle might say.

If you think that the stewards should have stepped in to disqualify Alphonse Le Grande immediately on Saturday, and that’s a perfectly logical position to hold, then you must also feel that the easy Grand National winner should also be thrown out tout suite.

Because the odds of the winner, the ease of victory and the status of the race are not factors which the stewards should be considering.

I find myself feeling a lot more uneasy about such a disqualification, and it’s not hard to see that chucking out the Grand National winner would be a massive own goal for racing.

Logical

The big problem with this rule is that the criteria for disqualification are arbitrary rather than logical (why 10 strikes rather than nine, or 11, or 12?).

If the Grand National winner gets thrown out for hampering the second on the run-in it will cause chaos, but at least there is a logical reason for that reversal that you can point to, but the 10-strike DQ, if I may so christen it, is a deterrent that is not meant to be used.

It’s the ultimate threat, which ensures that no jockey will break the rule. Except it hasn’t worked in one of the highest profile handicaps of the flat season, which is exactly where you don’t want things to start falling apart.

In theory, I was in favour of disqualification as a deterrent, but that’s because I reckoned that there might be one or two low-profile cases before the ultimate censure became necessary only as a threat.

Unfairly robbed

And now we’re past that. We simply cannot disqualify horses who win on merit, even if the underlying reasons are well-meaning.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and, if you’ve never really understood what that saying means, here’s a living demonstration.

I think this argument has been lost because most people feel that by using his whip 10 times, Jamie Powell unfairly robbed Manxman of victory, but if we genuinely think that horses will run faster for longer for being struck with an instrument that does not present a welfare issue – and this is a controversial argument – then we shouldn’t be restricting use of the whip at all.

My understanding of the whole whip review is that there is no linear relationship between the number of strikes of the whip applied and the finishing speed of the horse they are applied to, beyond the understanding that sparing use of the whip encourages a horse to make an effort by invoking the flight response.

Six strikes should be enough, then, and four more is a waste of effort. We have to believe that, otherwise the rules are simply wrong.

Given the extra strikes are not gaining an unfair advantage, then any disqualification is both political and cosmetic, done for the public image of racing rather than to ensure the correct result.

As demonstrated, if we do have a big winner disqualified immediately after the race, then whatever PR benefit that is garnered by showing that racing’s rulers are focused on whip misuse will be completely undone by the overwhelming negative reaction to such a decision.

In short, we started with what appeared a sensible rule, but one which was drafted on the presumption that its draconian punishment would ensure it never needed to be applied in practice.

Unfortunately, when you rely on suppositions - like believing that novice chase certainty you’ve lumped on will jump as well as it’s schooled - then it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes a cropper.

The BHA have, somewhat ironically, made a rod for their own backs.