No need for immediate action in wake of Freddy Tylicki's court win, BHA decides

No immediate action is required in the wake of Freddy Tylicki's High Court victory, racing's ruling body has decided. The BHA moved on Thursday to offer its view that changes made since Tylicki's career-ending fall in 2016 are sufficient to address any concerns arising from the case and its outcome, though it also raised the possibility of longer suspensions for interference as a consequence of a wider review of penalties.

The BHA's response comes seven weeks after a 26-page judgement was handed down, finding that Graham Gibbons should pay damages to Tylicki for paralysing injuries resulting from mid-race interference. The regulator was not represented at the week-long hearing in early December, instead choosing to obtain a transcript of what was said and discuss possible implications with stakeholders before offering its reaction.

Pointing to "significant reforms" of the stewarding model and processes, the BHA said it was "satisfied that the High Court has not identified any further actions that must be taken". It noted that stewarding panels have since moved from mostly amateur to mostly professional, adding that stewards are now better trained and have access to better views of races.

Tylicki called for stiffer penalties for interference in the wake of his court success. Without offering an opinion on that, the BHA says it will conduct a general review of "the full range of sanctions, including those for interference", which was originally intended to flow from rule changes in 2019 and has been delayed by Covid. Discussions are said to have begun, although it is understood that real progress is not expected until the second half of what is already a busy year in racing regulation.

Freddie Tylicki: won his High Court case in DecemberCredit: Edward Whitaker

No action is proposed in response to the evidence given by Pat Cosgrave, that there is an informal code of conduct among jockeys to "stay as neutral as possible" in inquiries. Cosgrave said that was why his evidence in court was different to what he told Kempton stewards on the day of Tylicki's fall.

The BHA view is that stewards are able to see past any obfuscation from jockeys. "Evidence given by jockeys during inquiries is just one piece of the evidence stewards are required to carefully consider and weigh against all other evidential material," its statement says. "Experienced and trained stewards objectively undertake this task and make decisions based on the required standard at every fixture, every day."

There will be support from the BHA for the jockeys' trade association as it seeks to renew indemnity insurance for its members later this year, a negotiation that seems sure to be impacted by the seven-figure cost of Tylicki's claim. The ruling body offers to provide "whatever material they may need to demonstrate the level of risk mitigation that is now in place.

"Such risk mitigation includes the introduction of saliva testing in 2021, whereby oral swabs are used to provide on-the-day screening for cocaine and a range of other banned substances at racecourses. Over 900 saliva samples were taken in 2021.

"Funding has also been made available by the Levy Board for hair sampling to become a mandatory element of any jockey’s licensing process in the future, as part of a widening of the matrices used to test for prohibited substances."

Read more on this story:

Freddy Tylicki wins High Court case against fellow jockey Graham Gibbons

Time for a serious chat about interference as BHA mulls Freddy Tylicki verdict

Tylicki recalls 'shout for survival' as claim against Gibbons is heard in court

Freddy Tylicki incident was 'easily avoidable', Jim McGrath tells High Court

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday