Kevin Blake

What has changed in the five years since the interference debate was put front and centre?

Over five years have passed since this column made it’s very best effort to start a serious discussion on the subject of the weak stewarding of interference in British and Irish racing. As well as putting forward the relevant arguments, the article included a graphic video of examples of severe interference that resulted in weak punishments. Knowing from experience that someone like me kicking this particular hornets’ nest would be met with predictable criticisms of “how many winners have you ridden?” etc, I presented the article and video to a group of the most respected names in British and Irish racing and asked if they would be happy to publicly endorse the arguments put forward. Aidan O’Brien, AP McCoy, Jamie Spencer, John Oxx, Joseph O’Brien, Mick Kinane, Oisin Murphy and the late Pat Smullen duly agreed to put their name to it.

This week's column: The stewarding of the interference rules in Britain and Ireland has to change before there is a tragedy. RTs appreciated. https://t.co/IVNhKt33yK pic.twitter.com/QW4lKksZnM
— Kevin Blake (@kevinblake2011) July 14, 2020

The article and particularly the video that accompanied it was designed to shock, embarrass and provoke a response. It succeeded in doing that, with it focusing both domestic and international eyes on the outlying lenience with which serious interference is dealt with by British and Irish stewards. 

Given the deliberately shocking nature of the accompanying video and the emotive nature of the debate, not all of the response to it was positive. Several high-profile current and former jockeys made their displeasure with the article and video known on social media and in private, as they are fully entitled to, but the vast majority of reaction from both the public and racing professionals was one of clear support for changes that would lead to a reduction in interference in British and Irish horse racing. 

The issue of the lenient stewarding of interference has been thrust back into the news cycle on regular occasions since then. It hit the headlines on the biggest stage when The Ridler won the Norfolk Stakes under a wildly careless ride by Paul Hanagan. The 10-day ban that Hanagan received once again showcased to the rest of the racing world just how lenient British stewarding is when it comes to even extreme cases of interference.

"You shouldn't be riding like that"

It's safe to say that @kevinblake2011 wasn't happy with the interference caused as The Ridler won the Norfolk... #RoyalAscot pic.twitter.com/cQPvYNrJZk
— At The Races (@AtTheRaces) June 16, 2022

With the issue of the stewarding of interference having once again come back to the top of the news cycle following comments made by William Haggas on Luck On Sunday just over a week ago, now seems a good time to ask what has actually changed in the five years since the hornets’ nest was kicked. 

Well, it took three years, but the IHRB belatedly amended their scale of punishments for interference in June 2023. Increased entry-point punishments for careless/improper/dangerous rising and bigger consequences for repeat offending were certainly a step in the right direction. This, coupled with an apparent greater willingness of many Irish stewarding panels to give the sufferer the benefit of the doubt over the aggressor in interference-related stewards’ inquiries (eg this year’s Galway Hurdle) seems to be having a positive impact on jockey behaviour. 

However, more than five years on, the BHA have yet to act. At the time, I was told by BHA sources that the penalties for interference-related riding offences would be addressed after a planned overhaul of the whip rules was completed. The new whip rules came into play at the beginning of 2023 and six months later the BHA publicly reported that a widescale consultation on the penalties for riding offences was “entering its later stages.” 

Alas, that was the last that has been said publicly of the matter. It seems that personnel changes in the BHA resulted in the process having to start from scratch and it is currently “ongoing”. 

While one can have some sympathy for the BHA given the amount of personnel changes and multiple serious matters that have fallen their way in the last five years, it really does frustrate that a matter as serious as this has taken so long to address. Indeed, that tightening the regulations around the whip, a tool that will never cause meaningful harm to horses or jockeys, was given such preference in terms of focus and action is a real frustration. One serious incident of interference can have life-changing and indeed life-ending consequences for horses and riders. That the seriousness of the matter has been so diminished by the regulator despite there being such strong support for change amongst racing professionals is disconcerting. 

It goes without saying that the shortcomings of the use of the existing rules remain a serious issue. Severe cases of interference are still being dealt with using mid-range punishments at best, with some jockeys still feeling enabled to commit professional fouls with little fear of meaningful penalties. While the dangerous riding rule remains in place, now over 16 years has passed since it was last enforced on a British racecourse. Possible reasons why this stunning reality has come to pass was outlined in another article on this subject in this column five years ago: 

“The ruling in the “Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald” case in 2001 was a highly-significant judgement for British sport in general and is important to consider in this discussion. In what was believed to be the first case of its kind, former jump jockey Peter Caldwell sued Adrian Maguire and Mick Fitzgerald for allegedly causing what proved to be a career-ending fall for him in a race at Hexham in 1994. The judge ruled that while Maguire and Fitzgerald had been found guilty of careless riding by the stewards on the day, this did not constitute negligence, as the incident “reflected the cut and thrust of serious horseracing. In theory avoidable, but in practice something that is bound to occur from time to time, no matter how careful is the standard of riding.” Thus, Maguire and Fitzgerald were found not to be liable for damages. 

This ruling set a significant precedent for British sport whereby a sportsperson could only be found guilty of negligence if the offence was deemed to be reckless or intentional, rather than careless. In a horse racing context, this means that a jockey that has been seriously injured in a racing incident due to the actions of another rider is likely to face a very difficult legal task in recovering damages or even receiving a third-party insurance pay-out if the stewards on the day didn’t find the incident to have been the result of dangerous riding.” 

In short, the implication is that the real reason British stewards have been so reluctant to use the dangerous riding rule is that doing so would invite legal action from the jockey that suffered as a result of the incident. Incredible. 

It was feared that this precedent would represent an insurmountable barrier to Freddy Tylicki getting the judgement he deserved when seeking justice for the actions of Graham Gibbons that led to him suffering life-changing injuries in a race fall in 2016. The stewards on the day had deemed the interference to be accidental, but thankfully the judge in the case used her eyes and common sense to sensationally overrule that conclusion and find that Gibbons’ riding was dangerous and that he was liable for the incident that cost Freddy so much. 

It is the added context of that case having put the eyes on the world of the severe shortcomings in the policing of interference in British racing and the horrific consequences of what can result from it that makes the BHA’s continued inaction in addressing the matter so frustrating. If what happened Freddy wasn’t enough to focus minds to drive change, it really is a horrendous indictment of apathy from the BHA to the safety of jockeys and horses.