INTERFERENCE, BETTING & ME, THE HYPOCRITE.

Jockeys receiving bans for interference has risen 36% in the past year. This may be due to greater vigilance by raceday stewards; it may be due to jockeys adopting 'the professional foul' as a method for gaining the upper hand during a race. To my way of thinking, as much as I would like the number of strikes with the whip reduced to one, interference is a far greater crime than overuse of the whip in that interference, moving off a straight line or going for a gap that is not truly a gap, can result in incidents where the lives of fellow jockeys and the horses they ride is put in jeopardy. With the whips presently used by jockeys, overuse, striking a horse beyond the six-strike rule, only looks bad, while being pointless, as Monty Roberts attested to.

Jockeys found guilty of gaining an advantage by allowing their mounts drift across the course in a finish should always be punished with a ban and their horse disqualified. Yes, this also punishes the owner, trainer and stable staff, as well as punters, but it is the only way to persuade jockeys that it is better to finish second by running in a straight line, which is the quickest way to race, than by drifting across the course with the prime intention to intimidate a rival to also go off a straight line. Jockeys guilty of interference during a race, causing a jockey to snatch-up to avoid falling, should receive lengthier bans, with jockeys responsible for a fall banned for considerably longer, possibly up to a month.

No jockey sets out to cause an incident, especially one where a colleague is injured. But, and I apologise for referencing once again the bans recently imposed on Rossa Ryan and Connor Beasley, when a jockey receives a 28-day ban for a momentary misjudgement that did not cause a fall, while a jockey that was responsible for a fall only received 10-days, there is something horribly wrong. When comparing Rossa Ryan's error of judgement with a motoring offence, it is hard to find anything comparable. Though it is easy to compare Beasley's error of judgement with a collision on a motorway. The 36% rise in bans for interference could be reduced considerably if the punishments were lengthy enough to fit the crime.

I do not bet, except on the Aintree National (and my allegiance to that race is considerably less than in former years) and if I were to go racing, which I have not done for quite a few years. That should not suggest I do not approve of betting. As with everything else in life, in moderation betting on the horses can be stimulating and fun and if I could afford to lose, I would join in the fun. And though it is not my business to wag a finger at those owners who like to bet heavy on their horses, I cannot see the fun in risking five or six-figure sums on something as unpredictable as a horse race. Yet those big hitters add something to a day's racing and I do not, as racing journalists are prone to do, go po-faced and sanctimonious when a well-planned gamble comes off. Betting within the limit of what you can afford to lose without it affecting others should never be regulated. Gambling beyond what the bettor can afford to lose should be regulated in some way.

That said, betting on slot machines is stupid and should be banned in betting shops. I would argue all of racing's problem with the Gambling Commission began with the installation of slot machines in high street betting shops.

You may not have noticed but I am a hypocrite at times. Perhaps we all are in one way or another. I hated the Racing League only slightly less than I hated the concept of 'street racing'. Horse racing is a team sport, with that team consisting of stable staff, trainer, owner, jockey and horse. If the Racing League had been an inter-stable competition, which was, I believe, the original intention, I could have accepted it. But the teams were fantasy or ghost teams, with not even any pretence that the teams represented a home country, home county or home region. I am also beginning to fall out of love with the Shergar Cup as the the teams are becoming ever more random. Having Ryan Moore and Dylan Browne McMonagle in the same team as Saffie Osborne may seem a dream team but where is the true affiliation? Why can't it be teams of nationalities or even gender. Britain, Ireland, Hong Kong, Australia, Europe. True affiliations.

This is why I am a hypocrite. I would like a couple more of these 'team' competitions. One, where all the riders are British-based. A team of top male professionals; a team of the top male apprentices; a similar team of top female apprentices; a team of top female professionals and a team consisting of Irish-born/British based Irish jockeys. A showpiece for emerging talent and a team event with true affiliations. I would also like to see a slightly enlarged event between British, Irish, French and perhaps U.S. jockeys. A Ryder Cup for jockeys; perhaps to fill that slot on the Sunday after Royal Ascot.