Friday 18th April 2014 - The Balance

The Balance

 

Yesterday it was announced that Brendan Powell Jr was to face the BHA in regards to his use of the whip prior to the start of the Scottish Grand National, in which his mount eventually refused to race. In racing, fans latch on to the quirky customers of the game, the most recent one being the mercurial Mad Moose. A week behind Battle Group’s appearance at Ayr, he refused to race at Aintree, after consenting to join the main body of the field on the first start. His antics are well known, having refused to race twice in his lifetime before he did so on the biggest stage of all. Many people see it as unwarranted for his chance to be compromised as in return the secondary effect to the remainder of contestants is unquestionably, potentially detrimental. As I read recently, it’s not solely the horses that are being inconvenienced, in one aspect it can appear disrespectful to the trainers, stable staff and owners. When the race contested is one with the prestige and fame such as the Scottish Grand National, controversy is bound to erupt. For an argument as dimensional as this, it is important to respect all perspectives, and by writing this, I wish to outline my own.

 

The Crabbies Grand National was a huge success; the greater public were, as they usually are, immersed in our sport for those precious 10 minutes: in which we are perceived as either heroes or villains. As mentioned in my last piece, it is something we fans treasure, to be appreciated by others and to harmoniously announce the pride we have in our sport. Battle Group featured heavily in the races’ re-run, and although not ideal, emphasised the lack of cruelty in racing to those that oppose its existence and wish to disrupt its continuous momentum. Horses are not forced to run, and although Brendan Powell did all he was within his rights to do, the gelding said no thank you.

 

Battle Group on a going day, winning at last years Aintree fixture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At Ayr, in the Scottish equivalent, he consented to circle with the others, before again rejecting to race. The Channel 4 cameras obviously weren’t the only ones to get up close and personal with Battle Group as Brendan Powell tapped him on the shoulder in order to muster up some of his old enthusiasm to get him to jump off. Alas, all attempts were void by the Beat Hollow 9 year old and Powell’s urgings again proved of little inconvenience as he posted an invalid response. To those claiming Brendan was “beating” or “forcing” the horse- I wish to understand their reprimands as it clearly made little difference to his resulting efforts or behaviour. He wasn’t fazed. His rider knows him better than anyone watching, having ridden him to both success and failure, this is a relationship I respect and has to be admired by those whom have no relation to it. Battle Group was subsequently retired; trainer Johnny Farrelly quoted “this year he’s not been in love with it”, this is evidence that the horses best interests were at heart and the right thing was done.

 

However, what I found interesting was the fact that Brendan, (ironically in hindsight), tweeted saying the stewards had no issue with the action he took.

 

 

He has subsequently been penalized and in my opinion a contributing factor is that the so-called “cruelty” was displayed for the wider audience to witness. To this I question, had the incident occurred at Stratford in a novice chase, would the treatment of horse and jockey be different? Or would it be left unnoticed, because either would certainly be wrong. Surely if the stewards deemed this case unacceptable, it should be employed elsewhere? The public chose to entertain the wayward Mad Moose, yet the same treatment (including being chased with a belt), was given to him and racing hailed him, celebrated him almost, deeming the act as humorous.

 

 

Mad Moose resenting the first fence at Sandown.

 

 

 

 

 

I am aware that in racing we have to tread carefully to buoy the publics’ opinions, as ultimately, they are one of the sports’ income sources and without their approval we strive for the success of our sport in vain. The fact that action was not taken immediately following the events that unfolded, and instead the result was possibly due to complaints from to a minimalistic group of people whom may not watch racing otherwise, concerns me. Brendan Powell must feel cheated on. The journey travelled by the BHA’s recently announced enquiry could highlight flaws in conduct.

I refuse to condone that it was right for the starter to gift Battle Group a second chance in the Scottish Grand National, or as a matter a fact in the English equivalent. In contrast, as a jockey your job is to ensure the best possible for your horse and his/her connections. I’m sure if you would have given any other jockey the chance to try again, they would have done the same as Brendan. If he was to accept his partners unwillingness instantly, would that really be justifiable to: Himself, who had travelled 6 hours to ride him, his trainer, who earns a living from racing, and to his owner, who’s emotional and financial investments are repaid during the race?

 

There is undoubtedly a balance to be had between the outside public opinion and those closely related. In this case, I believe the balance could have been reached in a more clear and professional way. Some would argue racing requires strength beyond what is conventionally feasible, particularly in terms of consistent, appropriate yet adaptable regulations. I wish to add I am in no way insulting the BHA and their decisions, only questioning their methods as an outsider. Often when verdicts are given in this manner they are unclear and shrouded in mystery. It is a complex scenario and I’m confident there is more to it than this short musing. It is evident Battle Group is a loved and respected horse and I hope he enjoys a less troublesome retirement, especially given the atmosphere in which the latter stages of his racing life was subject to. I also wish both the BHA and Brendan Powell luck in reaching a worthwhile conclusion to this case.