The result of Newmarket’s Etihad Airways Falmouth Stakes is to be appealed by connections of the runner-up Sky Lantern.
Sky Lantern (4/7f) was beaten by just a neck by Elusive Kate (3/1) in Friday’s race but was hampered in the closing stages by the winner, who hung left across the track.
Elusive Kate’s jockey William Buick was given a three-day ban for careless riding in the stewards’ enquiry which followed the race but the result of the race remained unaltered.
The stewards’ report read:
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference from one and a half furlongs out. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, ELUSIVE KATE (USA), ridden by William Buick, had interfered with SKY LANTERN (IRE), placed second, ridden by Richard Hughes, and that the interference had not improved ELUSIVE KATE (USA)’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Buick in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he allowed his mount to drift left. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Friday 26, Sunday 28 and Monday 29 July 2013.
The Stewards noted that William Buick, the rider of ELUSIVE KATE, had struck the SKY LANTERN (IRE), across the nose once, one furlong out, but after viewing a recording of the incident they were satisfied that it was accidental.
It might seem strange that a jockey can be found guilty of careless riding and interfering with a rival but that the placings can remain unaltered when the winning margin is as small as a neck.
As a racegoer and a punter it is instructive to read the guidelines and questions the stewards consider when making their decision.
According to the BHA's rules, the stewards are required to consider “whether the sufferer [of the interference] would have beaten the interferer [i.e. causer of the interference] but for the interference.”
In attempting to do this the stewards should ask the following questions:
1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the incident?
3. How serious was the interference i.e. how much momentum did the sufferer lose and/or how much ground was lost?
4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in front of the interferer?
If NO - order placings to remain unaltered
If YES i.e. there is some doubt - proceed to question 5.
5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?
But more crucial in the deliberations are some of the guiding principles given to stewards. In particular:
Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand.
So, the longer it goes on, the less likely the result is to be changed. This should bring some comfort to those who have backed the first past the post next time there is a lengthy enquiry!
Remember: in amending the placings you are demoting the interferer not promoting the sufferer.
Other key guiding principles:
c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front.
Coupled with the idea above that the longer an enquiry goes on the less likely it is to alter the placings, this principle also explains when many ‘first past the post’ horses keep the race.
d) The Panel should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses.
e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that the result should be changed.
i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance from the winning post.
One wonders whether or not technology might eventually take more of a part in determining the outcome of interference. In cricket hawk-eye tracks the path of the ball and predicts its trajectory had it not hit the batsman’s pad in LBW decisions.
In a similar fashion, would it not be possible to track a horse’s line of travel, speed at the time of interference, acceleration/deceleration, and extra distance travelled, in order to assess which horse would have gone past the post first had the interference not occurred?
