Troubling stalls incident for William Buick on Derby day must lead to change

The instinct in horse racing is to play down anything that might be controversial or contentious and I think we've seen some of that in the official response to a scary incident on Derby day, when the stalls were allowed to open for the first race even though one of the jockeys was hanging on the stalls apparatus after being bashed on the head. I trust this incident will be looked at again in the coming days and an effort made to improve the systems in place.

Footage is here, in case you haven't seen it. Approachability plays up in stall six and swings his big, heavy head around suddenly into stall five, where William Buick is sitting on Blue Trail, quietly minding his own business. Buick takes quite a thump, clutches at his head and then leans on the stalls divider to his left for several seconds, trying to recover himself.

Then the stalls open and all the horses, including Blue Trail, rush forwards. Thank heavens, Buick has the presence of mind to get a firm hold of the stalls as he feels his horse start to move. As a result, he stays in the stalls, avoiding further injury.

Had he been carried forward for a couple of strides before falling off, things might have been very nasty indeed, not least because Blue Trail went forward fast enough to be in front of some other runners almost immediately. Buick could have fallen under hooves.

Oh well, freak occurrence, we move on. That, evidently, is how some respond to this. And of course you can't anticipate everything that may go wrong, or put systems in place to forestall every disaster.

But it's troubling that, I'm told, jockeys were calling out for the start to be delayed and yet these calls were not heard. It's troubling that a jockey could be visibly suffering in the stalls and yet the race be started several seconds later.

How many seconds? It's hard to be sure because the footage I've linked to above, from a camera directly above Buick, plays in slow motion.

ITV's broadcast footage was from a camera panning around the inside edge of the stalls, showing some reaction from those behind the stalls as Approachability misbehaved, then a brief glimpse of Buick hanging over the stall divider before the camera moved in front of the stalls to show the start.

Using that footage, I estimate six to seven seconds passed from the moment Buick was clobbered to the stalls clanging open. It seems enough time to register that something had gone wrong and take action to delay the start, even if it meant taking all runners out the back and then reloading.

Well, the starter clearly did not realise there was a problem from his position on a rostrum towards the outside of the track, several yards in front of the stalls, facing back at them. He didn't hear a call for delay and no such call was relayed to him. Perhaps the positioning of that rostrum needs to be reviewed.

Interestingly, there was a suggestion that a helicopter overhead may have made it harder to hear those calls. If so, the response to this incident is pretty easy: make sure no helicopter is close enough to the site to disrupt starting procedures in the future. The arrival and departure times of helicopters are supposed to be tightly controlled by the racecourse and there was a stewards inquiry at Lingfield on Saturday because a helicopter landed while runners were on their way to post.

Another way forward might be for officials to make more use of ITV's footage on those days when the broadcaster has cameras mounted on the stalls, such as the one that caught the footage of Buick being hit. Surely that footage could be monitored live by some raceday official at the start of each race, in case it shows something that requires the start to be delayed?

That official would need a live connection into the starter's ear, raising logistical issues. Like racecourse wifi, radio communication around British racecourses is not always completely reliable. Presumably, ITV use several cameras on the stalls, so that official would need a bank of screens showing pictures from all of them simultaneously. Could the stewards' room cope?

The point is that footage was available which, had an official been monitoring it on Saturday, would have prompted them to seek a delay. That being so, why not make the necessary effort to incorporate it into our safety procedures?

The BHA issued this statement on Sunday: "An enquiry into the incident at the start was held on the day and the starters were interviewed by the stewards. Events at the start play out very quickly and the starters do not have access to the visuals or audio from the broadcaster’s cameras and microphones in the stalls.

"The starters did not see or hear any of the commotion in the stalls or any shouts, and if they had they would, of course, not have started the race. All of our raceday processes remain under continual assessment."

Which is fine as far as it goes but personally I wanted just a bit of frankly stated curiosity about what went wrong here and how things might be improved. I'm not seeking to assign blame but it does seem discouraging that, with people all around the stalls for a 14-runner race, we failed to catch such a problem.

Next week, we'll be trying to start several high-profile races with twice as many runners. We have to make sure that word of any problem in the stalls can be quickly and effectively communicated to the starter.

I'm told by some of those who have the welfare of jockeys at heart that stalls procedure has improved quite a bit in the past 15 years. But given what happened on Saturday, it looks like there is still scope to do better. Hopefully, officials returning to work after the Jubilee weekend can pick this matter up and give it a thorough examination.