AS the flat season reaches its peak months, there have been quite a few stewards’ inquiries over the last few weeks.

Close finishes on the flat are bound to give rise to more cases than over jumps.

There have also been differences of opinion on the sanctions and administration of the inquiries.

At the Curragh on Saturday we saw another controversial finish to the Pretty Polly Stakes when the impressive two-length winner Via Sistina caused interference to at least two rivals. She might have been value for an even wider margin win, though the second Stay Alert also finished well after significant interference. Stay Alert’s connections are appealing the result.

At Royal Ascot, there were stewards’ inquiries into interference after Bradsell’s win in the King’s Stand (by a length), Tahiyra’s Coronation Stakes win (by a length), Pyledriver’s win in the Hardwicke Stakes (by a length and a quarter) and one into interference early in the Wolferton Stakes involving Frankie Dettori and James McDonald, resulted in a rider ban.

After those incidents, Hollie Doyle got four days, Frankie nine days, Chris Hayes none and P.J. McDonald three days – all for careless riding. Jamie Spencer got six days for the same offence in the Curragh incident.

None of the winners were ever likely to be disqualified.

No need for riders

During the Royal Ascot TV coverage, Ruby Walsh expressed the opinion that there is no need to bring in the riders after incidents like these. Speed it all up, have the stewards decide by themselves.

Soccer and rugby adjudicate on ‘in running’ matters immediately and without needing to speak to those directly involved.

Of course there is no subsequent appeal on any match-altering decisions. The TMO discussions are clear and unequivocal. But VAR has pleased very few.

Man and horse

And the added element in racing is that interference is caused by both man and horse, perhaps 50/50 or if taking into account the 8st rider on a half tonne of horse flesh, it can be more horse to blame. Is it not right to treat that explanation as important evidence from a rider?

In the televised inquiry after Pyledriver’s win Jamie Spencer said of the winner: “One time he’ll go right, one time he’ll go left, it’s difficult for P.J.” And McDonald himself said “My horse has got previous.” So the question is, how much horse, how much rider is to blame and what could the rider do to prevent it?

Dettori on Saga at Ascot appeared entirely to blame in that he manouvered to close a gap. Walsh said on TV that it was “improper riding – he knew what he was doing.”

A similar discussion came up on the TV channels in the Via Sistina incident – how much was the rider to blame, should Spencer have pre-empted the filly hanging?

Spencer did have his whip in his correct hand. On RTÉ, Emmett McNamara thought Spencer had done all he could, though on RTV Walsh felt he should have used his left rein more in an attempt to correct the filly’s drift.

While Stay Alert’s connections have every right to appeal, you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that she would have definitely won with a clear passage.

But her trainer Hughie Morrison, speaking to Mark Boylan of this publication, said: “When is a professional foul not dangerous when three horses nearly get knocked over? I believe it’s a professional foul.

“I think the winner was hanging from the moment she was pulled out in the straight and there was time there for Jamie to correct her and take action before the incident. There was a perfect gap that Stay Alert was running into and it was closed....

“I feel you cannot say Rosscarbery and Stay Alert weren’t in danger on Saturday. If that was the case, could corrective action have been taken?.”

Careless, dangerous and improper riding are different offences in an inquiry and Spencer was deemed careless.

Does anyone think the two-length Curragh verdict is going to be reversed on appeal?

Rules

Two of the BHA interference rules note: d) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front, and

i) The Panel must take into account the ease with which the interferer beat the sufferer.

The IHRB’s rule 214 says stewards “must be satisfied “that the interference improved its placing in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered. If they are not so satisfied they shall overrule the objection and order that the placings shall remain unaltered.”

The stewards make the decision but there could be an issue with not hearing the jockey’s take on it, in that will probably lead to more appeals which is not a particularly welcome scenario.

IT’S rather strange with all the famous fillies down the decades, that such a famous race, first run in 1886, had to wait until 1985 before a filly won it. Pebbles’ Eclipse win was followed by Kooyonga in 1992 and Enable deservedly put her name in the history books in 2009. Fortune was not always kind to the fine females though too – Park Top, Bosra Sham and Ouija Board being particularly out of luck in recent decades, and Triptych was placed three times.

So can Emily Upjohn strike a blow for the fair sex? It’s a small field so she won’t be hindered by interference issues. For the first time in seven starts she has a new rider and drops back in distance for the first time since her Musidora win last May. But she had hit the front two out when winning the Coronation Stakes last time so the distance should not be a problem.

Paddington has come a long way in a short time and been well-supported all week and aided by his three-year-old weight for age allowance. But stepping up in distance, the thought would be that he may not be as positively ridden as in the St James’s Palace.

Emily Upjohn first announced herself as out of the ordinary at this track last spring and Buick can get the first kick again today and add her name to those famous female Eclipse winners.