THE news that Britain’s champion jockey Oisin Murphy, currently banned from racing until next February, is to play a prominent role in the Sky Sports Royal Ascot coverage was greeted by different reactions this week.

It’s often good to look at how other sports deal with disciplinary issues and it’s difficult to think of any where someone banned or suspended for serious offences would be asked to join media coverage for a big event.

Of course, those dealing with addiction or mental health issues need support from their peers but the findings of that BHA hearing should be remembered. And it is important that everyone serving a ban for wrong doing should be treated in the same manner. It’s doesn’t sit right to say, oh he’s a nice guy, he’s so knowledgeable, come on board., when perhaps someone with less media appeal would have to find their way quietly through a ban.

Misleading

Murphy was banned for 14 months after admitting breaching coronavirus protocols, misleading the BHA, prejudicial conduct, and had two alcohol breaches.

In the BHA hearing findings, it was noted: “Mr Murphy’s conduct particularly as to the Mykonos charges (returning from holiday during Covid restrictions) demonstrates his perception at the time that he was above the Rules and the law;

Further, although there have been comprehensive admissions they started only after some considerable time when, evidentially, Mr Murphy’s back was to the wall.”

And there was this:

“This conduct gave him an advantage in the jockeys’ championship which he eventually won, in the sense that had he not ridden in those 14 days, whereas there was no certainty as to the outcome, his chances of victory would obviously have been undermined. For some time in interviews and in the media, he maintained and reinforced the lie.”

It just doesn’t fit well in a wider narrative of being accountable for your actions and taking the correct measures to address them. Think of others banned for similar serious incidents. Think Kieren Fallon, perhaps?

The “punishment” of serving a ban is much less severe if you are front and centre on TV getting paid to talk about the area in which you normally make your living.

Would a rider less media-friendly be given this opportunity if serving a ban from racing?

Gordon Elliott took his punishment for his “incident” and stayed away - what outcry would there be if he was joining a TV team for a big meeting, and his offence did not involve the risk of any ‘harm’ to anyone else?

Indeed you might think that this is a reverse of another case this year, when many were surprised at the publicity given to the claims made by the suspended Stephen Mahon in those Sunday Independent investigations.

Murphy did wrong, is being punished but he is a likeable guy so let’s give him a chance. Mahon had done wrong, but not so likeable? Don’t give him any airtime if he might be doing good as a whistleblower?

We are expected to be more lenient just because one is a nice guy?

Other jurisdictions have penalties of different degrees of severity. Jamie Kah is a crowd puller in Australia. She was banned, losing many top rides and significant earnings for Covid breaches. I doubt it would have been welcomed by fans or media if she had been added to the Melbourne Cup coverage.

It doesn’t quite fit the letters of the law. Those found guilty should be treated the same as they serve their punishment.