Letters To The BHA: Catterick Bumper 10/02/14

Hi Robin,

There is no report on the BHA site of any stewards enquiry into the failure of James Reveley to ride out for a place on favourite Star Lily in the bumper at Catterick. It's clear to the naked eye that Reveley's lack of effort/easing up cost Star Lily second place, and will have had a material effect not only on forecast bets, but for the thousands of punters investing in the placepot. Can I ask whether there was an enquiry, and if so what the result was?

Rory

Hi Rory,

Apologies for slow reply, was at Grand National weights lunch yesterday.

The stipes have got back to me with their explanation regarding the bumper, below.

Thanks,

Robin

I can confirm that, having watched the race live and replays on the day, we were happy that James Reveley riding STAR LILY would not have finished second because;

Reveley has been close to the pace throughout and challenges for the lead after a mile, he leads the field from 3 furlongs out after quickening away from BUCKBORU(who was caught flat-footed) he then has a battle with PREACHER'S BELLE for some way only to be swooped on from his left by the eventual winner GEORGIAN FIREBIRD who stayed on well. Reveley's mount is decelerating at the same time GEORGIAN FIREBIRD goes to win its race and Reveley is losing further ground as he's tackled for 2nd place by the one-paced BUCKBORU who is staying on. As the Racing Post quite rightly points out BUCKBORU "took keen hold,held up in touch,headway and close up over 3f out,ridden and slightly outpaced 2f out,rallied to chase(clear) winner inside final furlong,no impression", STAR LILY"close up, challenged halfway, led 3f out to over 1f out, no extra and lost second inside final furlong". The Racing Post Analysis also stated that "Star Lily was penalised for her debut win at Wetherby back in November. She is not the biggest and the extra burden on this terrain found her out"

I'm not denying Reveley's body language changes (well)inside the final furlong, it changes as he is being passed by BUCKBORU who stays on(having been outpaced) this is exacerbated by the filly coming back(decelerating) underneath him, this coupled with STAR LILY being beaten a length, I've no doubt Reveley and STAR LILY would not have finshed 2nd.

Hi Robin,

thanks very much for the reply. I can't say the stipe's verdict is one I agree with, but it's certainly strongly worded. From a personal view, I'd rather the stewards on duty were led by the Rules themselves, rather than a potentially prejudiced view of the race. I raised the issue simply because James Reveley (contrary to Rule D45) made no effort to ride his mount out throughout the final furlong of the contest, not because I thought she should have won. His only excuse for not doing so would have been as set out below, and yet no explanation was sought from the stewards as to why he had essentially eased off. 

I said the stewards should be led by the Rules, and not a "potentially prejudiced view of the race". That sounds a bit inflammatory, so I'll explain if it's not clear. By citing the Racing Post report, information is being brought into the equation which is not only badly skewed by confirmation bias, but also cites issues such as the ground and the fact that the mare was carrying a penalty. In deciding whether she has been given every chance by the jockey of obtaining second place, surely such factors are of no relevance whatsoever?

I'm sure that an explanation of "no more to give" would have been forthcoming, and would doubtless have been accepted, but at least that would have been on record. I believe that the stewards have not stepped up to the mark in terms of their duty to racegoers and punters in simply deciding that the jockey's actions were acceptable. It's certainly not a decision which chimes with the rules as they stand.  

45.3.3 the Rider considers that it would be contrary to the horse's welfare to continue riding out because the horse

45.3.3.1 has no more to give or is 'tailed off' through fatigue, or
45.3.3.2 has a problem which is materially affecting its performance.

It's my opinion, and that of many in the media that many more questions need to be asked, even if just to ensure that acceptable explanations are given, so that those who contribute to the sport through the levy are seen to have their concerns dealt with. That's very much how the rules are written, but not how they are applied. This also applies to the "why they ran badly" section of the BHA site. It's not offensive to ask why a horse should have underperformed, and in many cases the explanations are extremely useful for the public, but a huge swathe of unaccountably bad runs from fancied horses seem to be met with indifference. 

There's too much innuendo around within betting circles, but in the absence of factual information, people have always had a need to fill that void with rumour and supposition. The way to deal with this is to fill the void yourself with corroborative fact, which will counteract such cynicism, at least in part.

Thanks again for your time - I know this is vexing, but I also know it to be hugely important for the benefit of horseracing as a modern sport.

Rory