A controversial G1 Poule d’Essai des Pouliches (1600m) – the French 1,000 Guineas – on Sunday saw Zarigana awarded the race following a stewards’ inquiry – the correct decision by the letter of the law.
Shes Perfect had already been decried by grammar pedants for her lack of an apostrophe but it was her racetrack performance that was the target of scrutiny on Sunday.
The Charlie Fellowes-trained filly was first past the post in the classic but drifted out significantly in the straight and carried out Aidan O’Brien’s Exactly onto 1.8 favourite Zarigana. It didn’t help Zarigana either that rider Mickael Barzalona lost his whip, but stewards deemed that she would have beaten Shes Perfect if not for the interference, especially given there was mere millimetres in the margin.
Whether Barzalona and Zarigana should have fallen foul of the whip rules given the jockey used an open palm on his filly 12 times is another discussion and perhaps a matter worthy of appeal by Basher Watts and the owners of Shes Perfect. That was not the matter of the stewards’ inquiry and so was not up for debate when determining the result.
It may have been difficult for Fellowes and jockey Kieran Shoemark, particularly after his brutal week in which he was sidelined as retained rider for the Gosdens, but under the rules of racing, it was the right decision, especially since France changed its interference rules in 2018.
Before that, France made decisions under what is known as the Category 2 philosophy. Those rules dictate that a horse must be demoted below the horse that suffered interference if it had any influence on the result. It is a system which, these days, is primarily found in North America.
However, France brought their rules in line with the rest of the world in 2018 by shifting to Category 1, the philosophy that says a horse cannot be demoted unless stewards are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the affected horse would have beaten it home if not for interference.
Category 1 rules were applied appropriately by French stewards and they came to the correct conclusion.
Cries of hometown bias, primarily from British fans, were understandable but misguided. However, the outrage did as much to highlight issues with British stewards as with their French counterparts, especially ahead of a very busy period of English World Pool races.
The British have historically been far more lenient when it comes to interference compared to their international colleagues.
Who could forget the 2013 G1 Falmouth Stakes, when Elusive Kate entered the final two furlongs hard against the stands side rail and hit the line right across on the other side of the Newmarket July course?
Stewards ultimately determined that, as there had been no contact between the fillies, the result should stand. However, there is little doubt that Elusive Kate drifting out hindered Sky Lantern and did not allow her the opportunity to race on by.
The one time British stewards did get it right, in demoting Simple Verse after she won a rough 2015 G1 St Leger, a British Horseracing Authority panel overturned the decision on appeal and she was reinstated as the winner.
In the same breath, though, French stewards have made some wild calls over the years – think Dar Re Mi losing the Prix Vermeille, for one. That came under Category 2, though, and would not have been upheld under the current rules.
As World Pool becomes more entrenched among the biggest races internationally, it is only fair that the same rules are applied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is something that even the Hong Kong Jockey Club has noted in the last week as it has sought to strengthen its whip rules, which have been among the most relaxed globally.
In Hong Kong, betting is offered on racing and football. Would a Hong Kong punter confidently bet on, say, Australia’s A-League if they knew that the offside rules were different to every other country around the world? They would certainly be outraged if a team were denied a match winner.
No matter where that interference occurred – whether it be at Sha Tin or Saint-Cloud, Longchamp or Lingfield – and who was involved, the decision should be that the “winner” is demoted. In this instance, French stewards were right on the money. ∎
