Kinane courts controversy

Some suggest Galileo v Fantastic Light would have been devalued for racing's devotees if the match hadn't also hinged on their respective jockeys, Kinane v Frankie Dettori. Yet, the brief facts are that when Kinane appealed against the Leopardstown stewards' decision, the Appeals & Referrals Committee at the Irish Turf Club rejected his argument and upheld the suspension.

What actually happened is more convoluted and formed the basis for Kinane's next move. Letter and spirit of the law divided, whichever side of the fence you sit.

Disquiet arises from Kinane's post-King George comments. "I left no stone unturned to be here today," he told the thrilled Ascot crowd, in typically joyless manner.

A member of the global jockey elite with one of the two best European retainers going, he had the financial - and, you could argue, commercial and professional - clout to challenge the ultimate decision of the sporting authority under whose rules he applied for a licence and amassed his considerable living.

He lodged his Turf Club appeal on the evening of Friday 20 July, but it had not begun to be heard until 48 hours before the big race at Ascot on 28 July. Ireland's racing authorities are yet to be mediamauled for tardiness - and, later, ineptness - in the routine manner the UK's Jockey Club could have expected.

Legal argument and counterargument ensued and - in a scenario that demands unflinching investigation - two key witnesses, jockeys Niall McCullagh and Declan McDonagh who both rode in the Sophisticat race, failed to show. The former, unrequired at the initial inquiry but called to appeal by Kinane, was at a wedding. The latter's absence may be the subject of disciplinary action.

Both kindly pitched up the following day. But, as Kinane's solicitor, Andrew Coonan, later told the High Court, the Turf Club then "failed to adopt the appropriate and agreed procedures". The Irish Turf Club has since conceded " procedural errors", but is yet to object or consent to Coonan's representation.

Whether Kinane's riding was indeed 'careless' should have been considered first. Once the offence was upheld, Kinane's legal team should then have been given opportunity to plea for mitigation. This second step was omitted or conflated. Would Kinane have gone to the High Court anyway? Coonan says not, although he could have pointed to the UK where, since 1995, riding bans of two days and less can be deferred to avoid clashing with Group One commitments.

It's Coonan's job to point out technicalities, even if he quibbles with the term. Yet resort to the High Court has already been advised, but not acted upon, in the UK when appeals have failed despite correct procedure being followed. Kinane may embolden his peers.

Kieren Fallon was in a similar position earlier this year when a three-day ban for the more serious transgression of irresponsible riding saw him miss the Derby. Will racing's rules become two-tier, unenforceable on rich and influential jockeys? If penalties are so easily sidestepped, what value can they have?

The law says every individual has the right to appeal to a higher body. A sporting ban raises civil-rights questions of deprivation of income. The imposing authorities cannot be above the law and must conduct palpably fair procedures.

But - as the UK High Court ruled when Brighton defender, Steve Foster, challenged the ban that ruled him out of the 1983 Cup Final against Manchester United - if you play a sport, you tacitly agree to be bound by its laws.

All sporting systems rely on the collective respect and adherance of their constituents. Without that, their very fabric crumbles - not to mention a lot of High Court time wasted when life's more important matters could be resolved.

This is an important moment in sport, even if the Racing Post left its discussion to the letters page rather than its editorial. After criticising Kinane's "temerity", Alan Lee, of The Times, was reproached by Coolmore's Richard Henry and sent copies of the compliant Irish media's take on the subject.

But you can't keep a lid on a wriggling moral question like this - whoever you are.

When the case resumes on 22 August after today's likely adjournment, we'll hear the Irish High Court's view.