Archaic Norfolk Stakes panel waves away the best evidence - and I've had enough

In those cherished moments of downtime, few of us choose to unwind with the collected works of racing's judicial panel. So I'm guessing not many of you have made it all the way through the reasons (published on Wednesday) explaining why The Ridler has been allowed to keep his Norfolk Stakes victory, despite hampering key rivals in the closing stages.

The whole thing weighed in at more than 7,000 words, a Tolkienesque contribution to the literature of disciplinary hearings. It is possibly not quite as readable as Tolkien; there are fewer orcs and more Latin. So I'm betting that, among those plucky readers who decided to have a crack at it, the attrition rate was like a heavy-ground Grand National and maybe ten per cent got all the way to the end.

The dubious reward for doing so was the chance to read, in paragraphs 66 (i) to (vi), some objectionable stuff about the use of data in interference inquiries. I sat through all six hours of this hearing and thought the inclusion of some actual numbers (showing the speed of the runners at various stages) was one of the few bright spots, an indication that perhaps those involved might be ready to move forward from impressionistic evidence to something more objective.