PJA "struggle to understand decision" as Jason Watson's ban cut only to five days

Jason Watson's controversial seven-day suspension for failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures to secure the best possible position aboard a two-year-old debutant who swerved violently leaving the stalls was reduced to five days after a British Horseracing Authority appeal panel hearing on Thursday morning.

However, Professional Jockeys Association chief Paul Struthers said later in the day that he had been left "bitterly disappointed" with the decision not to quash the penalty altogether and pointed to a dramatic change in the success rate at appeal hearings, saying "we readily believe this is an appeal we would have won 12 months ago."

The seven-day ban for the ride on the Roger Charlton-trained Noisy Night was met with widespread criticism at the time, with Watson saying on social media that he felt "very victimized".

His Honour Patrick O'Mahoney chaired the independent panel at Thursday's hearing and said in his summing-up: "The rules are strict - some might think they are draconian but in considering whether has a breach of the rules been committed, was a horse asked for timely, real and substantive effort, was it ridden to obtain the best possible position, were all reasonable and permissible measures taken throughout the race to ensure the horse was given the full opportunity to achieve the best possible position, to all those questions is - and it's not in dispute - no.

"There follows the guidance 'Was the explanation given an acceptable reason?' and it’s that that we must answer.

"The reason contended is that by reason of the horse veering off sharply to the left at the start of the race that all hope was lost as he was out of contention.

"We find that Mr Watson made a very early decision that he did not need to make any more efforts to comply with the rules before the three-furlong stage.

"We consider that there is an important public interest in seeing a horse race even if it is unlikely to win. There are no welfare issues in this and Mr Watson agrees in cross-examination that he could potentially have finished closer.

"It cannot at the end of the day boil down simply to a question of a jockey’s perception of being out of contention. Even a decision in good faith doesn't mean that the stewards - and, in due course, the tribunal here - should not look at the Rules. You have to look at the Rules even if the decision was made in good faith."

The panel did agree to reduce the penalty to a five-day suspension, with O'Mahoney explaining "Our view is that given where this matter stands in the context of rules, not much real damage has been done to the integrity of racing and that at the beginning of the race Mr Watson was put in a very difficult position."

The hearing proved an occasionally lively affair, with the counsels representing Watson and the British Horseracing Authority failing to see eye to eye at times, but there was no argument that Watson had failed to take all measures to ensure the best possible placing - instead, the area of contention was whether he should have made the decision at as early a stage of the race that he did that he effectively had no chance.

Representing the BHA, Louis Weston noted that despite putting his mount under minimal pressure, they had not finished last. Watson could not, he said, be sure that his mount could not have obtained a better position in the race and was bound by the rules to put in a more substantive ride.

"People are entitled to see what the horse can do," he said. "It is a horse race."

But Watson's solicitor Rory MacNeice pointed to the Racing Post analysis of the race that the horse had "lost all chance at the start".

"You have to look at this with a large dose of reality," he told the panel. "A horse 12 lengths behind in a six-furlong race is by any basis out of contention.

"If you pointlessly put a horse under pressure, it is to pointlessly risk that horse."

Paul Struthers, the PJA's chief executive, was among those present at the remote hearing, and issued a statement, saying: "We are bitterly disappointed to have lost Jason’s appeal and struggle to understand the decision.

"What does the BHA and the Panel say Jason should have done? Did he need to ride hands and heels for half a furlong? A furlong? All the way to the line? Did he need to ride more vigorously than hands and heels? We are concerned that the BHA and the Judicial Panel are applying the Rules with their focus on integrity, in circumstances where in Jason’s case everyone agreed he acted in good faith. This was not a ride where integrity was an issue.

"They are also ignoring the myriad shades of grey that exist within racing. Jason’s chance had gone before the race had begun and he then acted in the best interests of the horse. After today’s ruling, how does the Judicial Panel and BHA say a jockey may act in the best interests of the horse? A reduction of a suspension from seven to five days still represents a working week where Jason will be deprived of the chance to earn his living.

"We referred the Panel to a race that had taken place at Newbury three days before the race at Nottingham. Jason rode a two-year-old in that race who caused problems immediately after the start and was subsequently ridden in an almost identical manner. The Stewards at Newbury did not find him in breach, yet the Nottingham Stewards did, even though he was beaten almost twice as far. What are jockeys supposed to make of that?

"In any given year there can up to 800 individual suspensions handed to jockeys, and the PJA would be asked to review approximately 150 of those with a view to appealing. Since 2016, the PJA has sanctioned an average of 12 appeals per year. When sanctioning such a small percentage of possible appeals from Stewards’ decisions, we would expect to have a high success rate and the figures have borne that out - from 1st January 2016 to the start of August 2020, we won 86% of appeals we sanctioned, including 69% in full.

"Since August 2020, our success rate has decreased to 50% and we have only won 11% of appeals in full despite the process and rigour behind identifying appealable cases remaining the same. We are left to wonder what has changed and readily believe this is an appeal we’d have rightly won 12 months ago."