How can the BHA have missed the significance of Tylicki v Gibbons?

The Front Runner is Chris Cook's morning email exclusively for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers, available here as a free sample.

In Monday's email Chris reflects on last week's High Court case involving Freddy Tylicki and Graham Gibbons – and subscribers can get more great insight, tips and racing chat from Chris every Monday to Friday.

Members' Club Ultimate subscribers who aren't yet signed up for The Front Runner should head to the My Account area and under Email Communication opt into 'All members-club only emails' to start receiving The Front Runner and more great exclusive email content!

Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content, including tipping from the likes of Pricewise and Paul Kealy, all the big interviews and features, daily comment and news analysis.

I sat through something like 20 hours of evidence and argument in the High Court last week as a judge considered Freddy Tylicki's claim for damages against Graham Gibbons. Aside from the main question, whether Gibbons was to blame for the paralysing injuries suffered by Tylicki (which Gibbons denies), there were some significant implications for horseracing but unfortunately the ruling body is not well placed to respond to them, or even to acknowledge their existence.

That's because, incredibly, the BHA did not have someone in Court 69 making a careful note of all that was said in case it should turn out to be important. Various people were in the small seating area at the back of the court during the week and one doesn't always know who they are but there came a day when it was just me, Laura Scott of the BBC and Gibbons' parents, who made the journey over from Galway to sit in court all week in support of their son. At that point, it was obvious that the BHA weren't there.

I asked them why not and was told: "The BHA is of course extremely interested in the proceedings. At the conclusion of the case the judge will hand down a detailed written judgement, which we will analyse carefully once it is made publicly available. It is these formal judgements which are of most relevance and importance when it comes to the consideration of any implications for the sport."

To me, this reads like an excuse offered when it was too late to do the right thing. But I don't know how the BHA can have missed the significance of Tylicki v Gibbons, the date for which was published in the Racing Post all the way back in April. Also, the Post and Racing TV did their best to remind people the case was coming in the days beforehand.

Jockeys giving evidence in the High Court about a racing matter, how often does that happen? By itself, that would have justified a BHA presence, I would have thought. But this case actually involved one jockey suing another over crippling injuries arising from one of the worst Flat-racing incidents ever seen in Britain.

The witnesses included two former champion jockeys. The outcome depended largely on whether the BHA's raceday stewards had reached the correct verdict. Another of their stewards was lined up to give evidence as an expert, a fact that he had surely mentioned to the ruling body.

Graham Gibbons: witnesses during the case included two former champion jockeysCredit: Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)

All of those things, taken together, surely add up to an obvious necessity for the BHA to be keeping a close eye on proceedings, even if it did happen to be in the same week as the Robbie Dunne hearing. Were I an executive there with some responsibility for raceday regulation, I'd need a pretty good reason to be anywhere else. At the very least, I'd want some keen, young staffer to be in court, taking copious notes so that everyone at 75 High Holborn could justly claim to be on top of events.

Instead, no one was there. Readers of the Racing Post were better briefed about what went on than the folk who run the game.

And what did they miss? Pat Cosgrave talking about the code of conduct among jockeys that prevents them from fully speaking their mind in stewards' inquiries. Jim Crowley saying that one of his colleagues so often had alcohol on his breath that denizens of the weighing room had become accustomed to it. A BHA steward being cross-examined about the limitations of inquiries and whether or not jockeys can be trusted to speak up.

It's possible the eventual judgement will deal with these matters in detail. Or it might be that Judge Karen Walden-Smith is able to reach and explain a decision without addressing them at all, in which case the BHA will be left in its position of ignorance.

And of course there will be the practical difficulty of ensuring continued insurance cover for jockeys if there is a payout to Tylicki at the end of this case, with the sum to be paid likely to run into seven figures if Gibbons is indeed found to have been negligent. That's an issue for the PJA but if, in the end, insurance proves to be impractically expensive or even unavailable, it becomes a serious problem for everyone. Wouldn't it be nice for the BHA to have all the relevant background detail if it found itself having to get involved in tackling such a problem?

A BHA presence last week would have been a reassuring sign that in fact the sport is well run and its top people can tell what really matters. Instead, I'm left imagining a group of people chiselling away in their own little silos and nobody sticking their head outside to see if there's something that might need to be dealt with.

After the publication of Monday's Front Runner, the BHA got in touch to add the following to its previous comment: "The suggestion that the BHA has not identified the significance of this hearing is entirely incorrect. Alongside any detailed judgement issued by the judge, a full transcript of the proceedings has been requested which will allow the BHA to take the time to study the proceedings in detail and carefully reflect on any items of concern."

One story you must read today

Does Dan Skelton have a live one in the Gold Cup? The biggest hopes are held for Protektorat

Read these next:

The Last Word: 'He created history' – record-breaking Gordon Elliott among this week's winners

Quotes of the week: 'It was a 'whoa' moment. We didn't realise there was trouble'

The Front Runner is our latest email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a three-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday