ascot suspensions, charity, black type.

​I may be wrong but there seems to be a directive at the moment to ban as many jockeys as humanly possible. The ‘brutal’ whip bans imposed on Keilan Woods and Paula Muir by the B.H.A. last week under the ‘totting-up’ process give both the public a false impression of jockeys as ‘carpet-beaters’ and ammunition for the likes of ‘Animal Rising’ to help sustain their cause. On Tuesday, we will discover if any jockey breached the whip rules at Royal Ascot. I witnessed little to disturb me in any race last week but then I am not paid to analyse camera footage in search of breaches of the rules. Personally, I would prefer to see ever-increasing fines, including having the riding fee taken from them, imposed on jockeys rather than suspensions for whip offences. 30% deduction in prize-money from winning a race at Royal Ascot would hurt far more than a 4-day ban.
I suspect P.J. McDonald received a suspension for Pyledriver’s misdemeanours in the Hardwick, other than that it was the bans imposed on Hollie Doyle and Frankie Dettori that caused me ire. 
My problem with the 4-day ban given to Holly Doyle is this: as with Pyledriver, the incident was caused by the actions of Bradsell. I believe Hollie Doyle did all she could in the time-frame available to her to keep her horse on a straight line. You can argue in P.J. McDonald’s case that as Pyledriver is a known offender, it would be wise of whoever is riding him not to use the whip on him. In a case like Bradsell, all a jockey can do is react to the sudden actions of the horse beneath them. The ‘offence’ in this case happened right on the finishing line, though there was ‘intimidation’, as Jason Hart described it, during the final 100-yards. No one can say with certainty that Highfield Princess would not have got upsides Bradsell if that ‘intimidation’ had not occurred and might or might not have ‘outbattled’ him in the shadow of the winning post. It was ‘the opinion’ of the stewards that the result was unaffected by either the ‘intimidation’ or Bradsell suddenly veering towards the exit gate in the final strides of the race. It is conjecture. My ire, though, was raised by the suspension imposed on the rider. If Highfield Princess was not denied a winning opportunity by the riding of Hollie Doyle and the bump on the line did not affect the result, why impose the ban? To claim she should have done x y z in the micro-second of the moment, when she did do everything in her power to keep the horse straight, is, to me, an inadequate conclusion. If her riding did not affect the result, why should she be banned? Pyledriver knocked another horse into another horse, that was a dangerous incident which might have been avoided if P.J. had not used his whip. In comparison to the incident caused by Bradsell, the Pyledriver incident was 4 or 5-times more dangerous. Will P.J. get a 12-day ban for an incident that was, it can be argued, out of his control?
Frankie’s ban was also subject to conjecture. He chose to steer his mount to the rail, when he had the option to stay straight, a manoeuvre that caused the jockey behind to snatch-up his horse to avoid a major incident. This was jockey error and a ban was inevitable. If Hollie received a 4-day ban for something that was beyond her control and which she had a micro-second to react to and rectify, is 9-days right for an incident that was wholly jockey error? Personally, although the professionals think the ban will be reduced, I don’t think it will be overturned on appeal. To me, the ban P.J. McDonald receives should be less than one Frankie received as he reacted to a situation, whereas Frankie was fully in control of his actions.
Now then, black type. Too many fillies and mares achieve black type on the cheap. For instance, if a filly finishes last of 4 in a listed or Group race it will receive black type in a sales catalogue, as will her progeny when sold in the sales-ring. If a filly or mare wins a fiercely-competitive handicap at Royal Ascot with double-digit number of runners, black type is not awarded, a situation that seems bizarre to me if ‘black type’ is supposed to signify higher achievement on the racecourse. 
Finally, an everlasting gripe of mine. Last week bookmakers shared their profits from the Britannia Stakes between six charities, all noble and worthwhile causes, I have no doubt. Yet Royal Ascot is a celebration of the horse (and yes, the clothes horses on parade between the races) and yet no one thought it right to donate the money raised to an equine welfare charity, if only for the right sort of publicity it might get. If horse racing itself cannot financially support the work of the Rehabilitation of Racehorses, as an example, how can we expect the public to put their hands in their pockets. On the last day of Royal Ascot, Canute lost his life in pursuit of our entertainment. A tragedy or merely bad publicity for the sport? Every charity day that takes place on a racecourse should involve raising money for either equine charities or the Injured Jockey Fund. Privately people can support any charity of their choosing. Publicly, the sport should look after its own.