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

The Front Runner is Chris Cook's morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, available here as a free sample.

In Monday's email Chris reflects on the High Court case involving Freddy Tylicki and Graham Gibbons and the implications it has on stewarding – and subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from Chris every Monday to Friday.

Members' Club Ultimate subscribers who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should head to the My Account area and under Email Communication opt into 'All members-club only emails' to start receiving The Front Runner and more great exclusive email content!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content, including tipping from the likes of Pricewise and Paul Kealy, all the big interviews and features, daily comment and news analysis.

With a bit of luck, we may hear from the BHA this week with its response to the Freddy Tylicki verdict. Tylicki's unprecedented success in that case worth seven-figures must surely have had implications for the way horseracing is run but we're still waiting on the official view as to what those implications may be.

When it was announced, to the surprise of most of us, I think, that Tylicki had proved his case, I wrote that the BHA was "not best placed to offer a quick response" because they hadn't been represented in court during the week-long hearing of evidence. The BHA response was that they wouldn't have been offering a quick response in any case and it would have been reckless to put something out within the two days immediately after the ruling, which I felt was overegging the need for caution.

Anyway, it hardly mattered because we were in the last days before Christmas and there was no racing on. There was a natural breathing space.

Now, 20 days have gone by and, without wanting to make a nuisance of myself, it's time for the regulator to share its thoughts with the rest of us. The word at the start of last week was that discussions with industry stakeholders were continuing and should not be rushed, which is fair enough, up to a point; eventually, some leadership is required.

Some of us felt we were seeing the impact of the Tylicki verdict just a week later, when Tommy Dowson was given 13 days for a bit of interference at Chepstow, when his mount moved back to the rail in midrace and almost knocked Sean Bowen out of the favourite's saddle. That was a much longer penalty than we were used to seeing for careless riding; were the Chepstow stewards influenced by the thought that the manoeuvre in question was similar to the one which triggered Tylicki's case?

Dowson didn't offer subsequent comment but evidently he decided against an appeal because he starts serving his long ban today. It's a pity, in a way, since a panel hearing is naturally more thorough than a raceday inquiry and we would have heard a detailed explanation for whatever penalty was settled upon.

In the circumstances, I think it's fair to maintain there's a degree of urgency to the need for the BHA to give a firm steer to its stewards and the rest of the industry about whether anything has actually changed. You don't want individual groups of stewards making their own policy decisions. You don't even want the suspicion that that may have happened.

Freddy Tylicki wins High Court case against jockey Graham Gibbons

When we do hear from the BHA, I expect the dominant theme will be "steady as she goes and no sudden movements", which is the default steering for this particular ship. At the time of the verdict, they did point out that stewarding has moved on since the Tylicki incident in 2016, with improved cameras, technology and training, which seemed like a prelude to insisting that everything is basically fine.

It was certainly encouraging to hear that inquiries are now supposed to be adjourned whenever one of the jockeys involved is unable to give evidence because they are being treated by medical staff. The inquiry in Tylicki's case went ahead without input from him and exonerated Graham Gibbons, who was eventually found at fault by the High Court; the BHA insists that similar circumstances would now result in an adjournment.

There was no formal announcement of that policy change, so we haven't been able to monitor how stewards have followed it. Evidently, it was not in place in February 2019, when the stewards at Kempton suspended Charlie Bennett, even though the injured Robert Havlin was unable to give evidence; the suspension was quashed when an appeals panel decided Bennett's actions were blameless.

I've found a couple of instances from last year when inquiries were adjourned, including an especially nasty accident at Lingfield a year ago from which Jerry McGrath is still recovering. But the power doesn't seem to be used very often, judging by the database of stewards' decisions. We'll have to keep an eye on it.

What I'd like to see from the BHA is a commitment to review the interference rules. You could say they've been conducting a mini-review over the last three weeks but I think they'll be unwilling to make much of a change in response to a single court case, even after a lengthy private conflab.

Interference comes up far too often, particularly in the closing stages of races. Sometimes it is the result of inattention, at other times it appears a jockey has focused on winning the race to the exclusion of other considerations.

We need to find a way of creating a culture in which safety has a higher priority in everyone's eyes. I don't think you achieve that by simply ramping up the penalties on jockeys. But we can talk about creative ways towards a better future some other day. First, let's hear the BHA commit to the discussion.

One story you must read today

Who's the new McManus buy from France at the top of betting lists for the Cross Country Chase?