Ruling body applies the gloss but misses some moral clarity in Tylicki response

Another odds-on favourite obliged when the BHA sought to reassure us that everything is basically fine, despite the disruptive noises caused by Freddy Tylicki's court action. The ruling body, like many senior figures in racing, does not really do high drama and was never likely to convey a sense of crisis, especially having taken so long to speak on the subject.

But it takes quite a lot of gloss to smooth over what was heard in the High Court in December, especially the bit when Charlie Lane, a serving BHA steward called as an expert witness, told the court that, presented with the same evidence that was available to the raceday stewards, he would have called the interference accidental. Nor did he criticise them for failing to adjourn the inquiry, even though key witnesses were unavailable.

"To me, what you see on the film is sufficient for the stewards to reach a decision," he said. His words suggest that, for all the changes in stewarding since 2016, a panel might very well reach the same verdict of 'accident' in relation to a precisely similar event. Yet the High Court has told us what Graham Gibbons did amounted to negligence.