THE conclusion of Declan Lavery’s appeal on Thursday saw a line drawn under the initial enquiry into the running of the 2019 National Hunt Chase, which saw an unusually high number of non-completions, and provided an unedifying spectacle as a result.

The stewards were correct to pull several of the riders up to ask questions, and in the case of two of them, they were correct in handing out punishment.

It is only right that both Declan Lavery and Damien Skehan, riders of the third and fourth home, Jerrysback and Clondaw Cian, escaped censure having given those horses, both of whom ended up finishing quite slowly, sympathetic rides to finish without being asked questions they couldn’t answer, and while Skehan’s excellent account was accepted by the stewards when given the day after the race (having already left the racecourse before the initial enquiry began), it is slightly unfortunate that Lavery’s ride was punished in the way it was at the time.

APPEALS PROCEDURE

On one hand, the victory of his appeal and the way it was handled shows how effective the appeals procedure is under an independent panel, but on the other, the fact that the initial decision came under such fire means that the stewards’ handling of the affair will be tainted even though they largely got things right and were not in any way operating outside of the guidelines they have been given.

This was a matter of interpretation, and while I disagree with the way the rules were interpreted at the time, I respect that some of the definitions involved are open to subjective bias, I wouldn’t be looking for scapegoats for the initial decision.

Unfortunately, many people do seem to want a sacrificial lamb, but that is a deeply unhelpful way to go about things, especially given the rule in question is 20 years old, and not something foisted recently upon the sport as much of the reaction would suggest.

It cannot possibly be the fault of the incumbent CEO of the BHA, and it’s disappointing that much of the anger over this situation has been aimed in that direction.

There are certainly issues raised by recent events which the industry’s nebulous horsemen and the BHA need to discuss as a matter of urgency.

The obvious one is a better shared understanding of horse welfare, which is clearly a priority to all in the sport, but while trainers think that they are better placed than the ruling body to make judgements on what is best for their horses, the fact remains that there can be no such thing as self-regulation in a competitive environment.

The best example of why you can’t allow participants to always make the right call on welfare issues is that being fiercely competitive, as most of the best trainers are, tends to be at conflict with a need to be circumspect in matters of well-being.

Take Cheltenham’s April fixture last year, when a sudden temperature rise caused problems for a host of horses (19 to be precise) who suffered heat stress after races. A decision was taken to abandon the longest race on the card which was prompted by the veterinary team at the racecourse, and the majority of participants agreed in consultation with the stewards that it was a sensible decision in the circumstances, except for the trainer of a fancied runner who called the decision “appalling”.

What is needed is not cutting loose from the ruling body, but working more closely in consultation with that body about what factors are accepted by both parties and what factors are there to be debated.

It’s true that the BHA are being led by the prospect of government taking an active role in racehorse welfare issues, and that is an unappealing thought, with the current stance on animal welfare tending to be defined according to populist concerns rather than true merit, and going down the populist path is clearly one which will cause real damage to the sport.

On the other hand, the horsemen would argue that Mr Rust’s attempts to keep politicians on side by taking a specific lead, is merely level-two populism with inevitably similar results.

Racing could die a death of a thousand cuts if we keep identifying the need for change simply by tackling outliers, and it’s important that all those involved in the sport can come together and define what is acceptable to ask the sport’s equine participants in much more robust terms.