No stewards enquiry

[no idea]

Yet again I am perplexed.
Son Du Berlais a heavly backed favourite at Chepstow ran poorly yet no stewardes enquiry.
However in the same race the 20/1 outsider My Direction the trainers rep reported the horse had a breathing problem to the Stewrads.
Now I assume the Stewards asked about that or do the rep just pop in after the race and tell them "oh by the way the horse that was almost the rank outsider as a breathing problem"
Bizarre unless someone out there nows differently on how Stewards work. Makes my blood boil the inconsistency.

[moehat]

Son du Berlais is a fatality I believe.

[no idea]

How sad

[apracing]

No Idea,

May I introduce you to Rule C 34, whcih reads as follows:

34. Post-race reports of matters materially affecting a horse’s performance

34.1 Subject to Rule 35, a Trainer (or his representative) must make a report of anything that he considers might have materially affected the performance in the race of any horse trained by him.
34.2 Examples of matters that must be reported under this Rule include

34.2.1 horse bled from nose;
34.2.2 horse finished distressed;
34.2.3 horse lost shoe;
34.2.4 horse finished lame;
34.2.5 filly/mare in season;
34.2.6 horse gurgled (for example, by choking, choking up or swallowing its tongue);
34.2.7 suspected viral or other ailments;
34.2.8 not suited by going.

34.3 The Trainer must report to the Stipendiary Steward any horse which does not start with a declared tongue strap or loses its tongue strap during the race.
34.4 A Trainer who is required to make a report under this Rule may delegate the task of making it to the Rider.
34.5 A report under this Rule must be made as soon as possible after a race to a Steward, a Stipendiary Steward or a Veterinary Officer on the racecourse.

This rule has existed for many years, but unfortunately most trainers just ignore it and the authorities do nothing to persuade them to reverse that policy. One reason is that trainers know that if they report a problem after a horse has run badly, the handicapper will ignore the run and not award them the drop in rating they will get if they say nothing.

You can be 100% certain that B Curley has never taken a blind bit of notice of Rule C 34, but he’s merely an extreme example.

[wit]

in English law when it comes to interpreting a rule, one of the basics is that every word is taken to be there for some effect – the presumption is that nothing is superfluous or redundant.

so in C 34 “report anything that

he considers

might have materially affected the performance”

is taken to differ from

“report anything that might have materially affected the performance”

is taken to differ from

“report anything that

a reasonable trainer ought to consider

might have materially affected the performance”

etc.

the rule seems deliberately worded to make the matter subjective to what is actually going on in the head of the individual trainer at any given point – which is difficult for anyone else to assess, much less with 100 per cent certainty.

who knows why – maybe the BHA don’t want to be inundated with reports after each race ?

also in the rule there is no time limit on making the report – just says it must be made as soon as possible.

so if some years after a race Trainer X in a blinding realisation considers that Horse Y in fact was not suited by the going in that race, he must then report that realisation as soon as possible.

[no idea]

Many thanks AP.
I think that is why an awful lot of people view racing as corrupt or bent or whatever you want to call it when there is a rule like that so open to interpretation

[Author]

Posts