PLENTY to mull over from the Eddie Lai appeal early last week which saw the seven-pound claimer cleared of stopping Castlepeaktreasure from running on his merits at a dirt meeting at Sha Tin on October 18. Instead he was found guilty of the lesser charge of having ridden the gelding injudiciously and is now suspended until the race meeting of March 2. The two most important aspects arising from this case may, initially, appear to stand in contradiction.
The first of these is that Lai now has a chance to rebuild his career. If he had been found guilty of stopping Castlepeaktreasure he would have faced a much longer disqualification, rather than suspension, not been allowed to set foot on a racecourse anywhere in the world for the duration of that ban and would have also faced the distinct probability of never being granted a licence to ride in the territory again. But by finding that he rode injudiciously rather than deliberately stopping Castlepeaktreasure, the appeal Stewards have given Lai an opportunity to come back and put this unsavoury incident behind him. It may not have been their intention to give him a chance.
They may have only been dealing with the case as they saw it. But this is the effect. And it is hard to argue against the view that apprentices should be given that one chance and one chance only, even if they are found guilty of a serious offence like stopping a horse. Senior riders, no. They don't deserve any chances if they are caught stopping a horse because they are more experienced, subject to less pressures and can pursue their careers elsewhere once their disqualification is over a la the brilliant Australian jockey, Darren Beadman. But apprentices have to do what they are told, by and large.
And there is virtually nowhere for a local apprentice to go after his disqualification period is over with the possible exception of Macau. So a nine-month disqualification for an apprentice in Hong Kong can, effectively, mean life. No apprentice offending for the first time should receive a life sentence. This is where the Rules of Racing need looking into and amending in the light of the Lai case. To this extent, the appeal Stewards have tempered justice with mercy and allowed Lai that all-important second chance.
This is probably the most fundamental point of all and for that the Stewards are to be congratulated as it is also understood that should Lai offend again, he is gone forever. But now we come onto the second point, just where does this leave the stipendiary stewards who found Lai guilty of stopping Castlepeaktreasure in the first place? The view of the professional, paid stipes has been overturned by the view of the amateur Stewards. The worrying thing from this appeal ruling is what actually constitutes a horse being stopped in the eyes of the appeal Stewards? It certainly could make things more difficult for the stipes in the future. Again we come back to the peculiarity of Hong Kong's Rules of Racing. If Lai hadn't been facing the end to his career, he may well have appealed on different grounds. The Rules should allow for him, or any other first-time offending apprentice, to be found guilty of stopping a horse, banned for however many months but to be allowed to come back knowing that any other serious riding offence means they are gone - permanently.
While the Rules need looking at, it is to be hoped that the stipes do not let this appeal verdict soften the stance they take on racedays. A strong stipes panel is vital to the healthy functioning of the sport. The other important aspect of this case has nothing to do with whether the appeals panel's decision is right, wrong or indifferent.
