Downey case highlights absurdity of cocaine rule
Jockey is latest to be hit by ban despite coming up with strong evidence that he took no drugs
Anyone who has read The Reason Why by Cecil Blanche Woodham-smith will understand how disastrous a combination of pride and obstinacy can be. Woodham-smith borrowed the title of her book from the poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, about the Charge of the Light Brigade. “Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why,” it read.
There are now comparisons to be drawn between the mindset which caused that disaster and the current behaviour of France Galop, the ruling body of French horse racing.
The French, like the Earl of Cardigan, are pursuing a foolhardy strategy. But it is the British Horseracing Authority which is slavishly galloping towards the guns.
I am, of course, referring to policy around testing for cocaine; a recreational, non-performanceenhancing drug that is addictive and would lead to serious misjudgments by jockeys in significant quantities.
At first glance, testing positive for cocaine might appear to be a pretty black-and-white situation. But cocaine is prevalent in our society and contamination from banknotes to bars is a real possibility.
This is why all enlightened authorities have thresholds for cocaine which must be exceeded for a sample to be considered to be positive, as opposed to environmentally contaminated.
In Britain and Ireland, that threshold is 150 nanograms per millilitre of urine, and everyone knows where they stand. If a jockey exceeds that limit when tested, the level of excess is disclosed.
But in France, these levels are shrouded in secrecy. Not only will the French authorities not declare what, if any, their threshold level is, but they also will not come clean as to what the level was in any “positive” sample.
You could argue that the French are entitled to be obstinate, as perhaps they are genetically programmed to be, but here lies the problem. The French expect the BHA to reciprocate any ban they impose, which could well mean that the Bha-appointed disciplinary panels are banning jockeys in this country for something that is not an offence here.
In 2017, Rab Havlin, a much respected jockey, was banned under these circumstances when even the articulate John Gosden could not persuade the disciplinary
This cop-out is an embarrassment. You cannot have a test proving guilt, but not innocence
panel here not to reciprocate the ban. That affair had the stench of a miscarriage of justice hanging around it. But it was, we were told, out of the hands of the BHA and probably a freak, one-off situation. But it was not.
Robbie Downey is now in the same situation. He lost his appeal against a positive test in France and will now face a reciprocal ban in Britain, even though he has produced evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, he did not take cocaine.
Downey presented himself, with his passport as proof of identity, at two certified laboratories immediately he had been informed that he had tested positive, and had hair samples taken under proper process. He provided three months’ growth of hair, which covered the offending period. Neither lab found the presence of cocaine or one of its metabolites in any segment of his hair.
The French authorities reacted with Cardigan-esque obstinacy when presented with Downey’s defence. Firstly, they disputed the provenance of his hair. This was utterly disingenuous and without foundation. If they had been looking for the truth, it would have been a simple matter of matching another sample of his hair.
But they also clung to a disclaimer from one of the labs, which stated “a negative finding is not evidence of complete abstinence from a drug”. This cop-out is a real embarrassment for the BHA, which is planning to expand its own programme of testing the hair from jockeys to deter them from taking recreational drugs. You cannot have a test that can prove guilt, but not innocence.
The British racing authorities and the disciplinary panels acting within their remit must not continue to “gallop into the valley of death”. Common sense must prevail and our reciprocal arrangements be put on hold until there is some harmonisation of protocols.