Fergal Lynch© Photo Healy Racing
There has been angst aplenty over the BHA’s decision to allow Fergal Lynch ride again in Britain, much of it over whether or not the Irish jockey deserves a second chance after deliberately stopping a horse ten years ago. It’s true that Lynch betrayed appallingly, as true as it’s theoretically correct that jockeys should always try, and be seen to try, just as it’s true that confining races to such ethically pristine jockeys will result in an awful lot of loose horses: looking for perfection in racing involves looking forever.
Stating that isn’t a cop-out or an audition to be some apologist for bent jockeys. It’s recognition of the reality. Much has been made of the reasoning behind why the BHA previously rejected Lynch’s licence – “Members of the public are entitled to expect that those who are licensed as jockeys are wholly trustworthy without a past history that leaves any question marks over their honesty.”
On paper this is a valid aspiration. In reality it’s futile, an impossible standard. I know it, you know it, the guys who wrote that sentence know it; everyone knows it. It’s there for appearances sake, a tiny fig-leaf to shield only the most gullible eyes. That BHA statement contains the presumption that no respectable jockey has given one an easy, or deliberately met interference, or missed the break accidently-on-purpose, never mind anything more disreputable – EVER.
And of course on paper a plausible presentation can be made that this is actually the case despite everyone knowing it is rubbish.
What’s also rubbish is that jockeys somehow always act off their own bat. What you and I and everyone in authority also know damn well is that rare is the jockey who acts independent of what owners and trainers tell him. Jockeys as a breed generally like to win. But the system, with its foundations rooted in handicapping, actually systematically encourages and rewards cheating. Professional survival often depends on playing that system, and in such an environment riders getting an attack of the ‘morals’ can quickly find themselves idle.
It is fine to stand on your honour once you’re established. But at the very least getting the start involves doing what you’re told, something that can be conveniently forgotten by the great and the good once they are great and good
It is amazing in this game how people really can forget what they want to, especially when officially they really have become blameless pillars of the sport. The Russians have a saying that sums it up rather neatly, a sobering reminder to their billionaire oligarchs whose wealth and status now puts them beyond anything as distasteful as reproach – “the first million is never clean.”
Lynch appears to have palled around with some particularly unsavoury characters that cheated and broke the law. That hardly makes him unique. It’s hardly unique either to expect a grown man to take responsibility for his actions which he now looks to have done. What does looks singular is that the authorities by some miracle originally managed to get enough on him to make denials of wrongdoing impossible. So kudos to them for that.
But for the BHA to continue presenting a pious public face that makes one jockey a pariah while most everyone else remains supposedly in possession of no “past history” would have been delusional. Paper might be important in terms of aspiration and what a sport stands for. But ignoring the reality in the interests of maintaining a pristine facade which fools no one is a cop-out. And pious indeed is the system which can’t allow for a second chance.
Behind the facade, plenty will tell you Lynch’s biggest crime was getting caught. Is ten years sufficient penalty? Who knows, although even the dodgiest rider would surely baulk at risking ten years to stop one if there was a realistic danger of getting caught. On paper that danger exists. The suspicion remains though that concentrating on the paper is a lot easier than creating a meaningful scenario where that fear might actually be tangible enough to deter cheats.
The countdown to ‘Champions Weekend’ is well under way with official limbs everywhere firmly crossed for its success. However, without wishing to be a party-pooper, is the whole ‘weekend’ bit too convoluted a concept in a sporting environment where any ‘morkoting’ wonk will confirm the essence of something has to be summed up in a sentence. And a short sentence at that.
Clearly the practicalities of each racecourse’s self-interest means the chances of races being coughed up to another track are minimal. But ideally, shouldn’t Irish racing’s new shop-window be on a single day in a single place? No explanations, no qualifications; just there it is folks, check out just how wonderful it is. Instead of which we have two days at two places resulting in basically a pair of stand-alone race-meetings.
That mightn’t matter too much since the purpose of it all is to highlight racing here on the world stage. Leopardstown can reasonably expect to eclipse the Doncaster Leger in terms of profile. The Curragh though is up against Arc Trials day at Longchamp, a fixture with a pair of Group 1’s of its own, which, like it or not, is likely to shade an Irish Leger in terms of international attention since the Arc remains European racing’s natural climax.
And finally, suspicions grow that jockeys are perfecting the report system to get their retaliation in first before any possible enquiry, something that helps get both them and the stewards off the hook while preserving a neat picture on paper. The reality though is a lot murkier.
At least one recent case looked fully worthy of further examination by the stewards but the rider was impressively quick with an excuse and nothing was done. Maybe the excuse was valid. But not going through the process of teasing it out was another cop-out.
