Racing

Judgment in Freddy Tylicki’s court case could reverberate around sport

Irish jockey seeking damages from Graham Gibbons after fall left him paralysed

Freddy Tylicki was left paralysed from the waist down after a fall in 2016. Photo: Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images

Brian O'Connor's face
Brian O'Connor
Mon Dec 20 2021 - 05:00

The outcome of former jockey Freddy Tylicki’s £6 million high court claim for damages as a result of a fall that has left him confined to a wheelchair could emerge in London this week. Its’ implications for sport generally, but racing in particular, could be far-reaching.

Tyliki’s life-changing injuries, which left him paralysed from the waist down, inevitably means there is an overwhelming strength of feeling about wanting what is best for the Irishman.

His successful riding career in Britain ended in a sickening incident at Kempton in October of 2016.

Tylicki’s mount clipped heels with a horse ridden by another Irish jockey Graham Gibbons and was one of four runners to hit the ground. The stewards on the night ruled the incident to be accidental and took no further disciplinary action.

READ MORE

However, the high court in London heard Tylicki’s argument earlier this month that Gibbons was at fault for the incident by tightening up a gap. He said that amounted to a “breach of the standard of care” between competing jockeys.

Evidence in support of that view came from a number of witnesses including one of the world’s leading riders, Ryan Moore.

Gibbons’ legal team rejected that and said a ruling against him has the potential to “open the floodgates” for similar claims in future.

There is no ambiguity about support and concern for Tylicki. The resolve he has shown in response to his devastating injuries, including carving out a new career as a TV pundit, has been admirable. Much less unequivocal though are concerns about the potential ramifications of the case whatever the result.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Irish Jockeys Association has been quicker than most to parse the wider implications of one rider suing another.

For a couple of decades the IJA has examined the issue of personal indemnity and tried to organise insurance cover for its members. It has failed to manage it. No firm has been willing to take them on. This is different to its equivalent organisation in Britain which does have such cover in place.

Unenviable position

Quite what any sizable payout might do for that situation is unclear but either way the IJA is in an unenviable position.

Ruby Walsh believes every jockey will have to find indemnity insurance if Tylicki wins. But if it has been impossible to get it up to now, the odds on securing any cover on the back of such a significant decision will surely lengthen.

Walsh has also pointed to the potential wider implications for other sports.

“Could the prop have tried harder to hold the scrum up? Or did the wing-back need to swing that hurley over his head? Did the striker know his studs were up when he tackled the goalkeeper?

“The scenarios are endless and the injury wouldn’t have to be catastrophic; precedence is precedence in the legal world,” the former champion jumps jockey wrote in the Irish Examiner.

They are legitimate concerns and there is no contradiction in expressing them while wanting what is best for the unfortunate Tylicki.

The IJA has pointed out how racing’s authorities on both sides of the Irish Sea haven't appreciated the upshot of all this yet, even if the result echoes a similar case 20 years ago which concluded that an error of judgment or skill wasn’t enough to prove negligence.

Judgments can always vary depending on who’s judging.

So is it sustainable for professional jockeys in Ireland not to have indemnity cover? Is it naïve to presume that many other sportspeople, even amateurs, don’t have to ponder at least the possibility of paying out damages if judged to have caused injury?

If racing has been slow to examine this it still has the capacity to at least move on one fundamental element within its control - tightening up the rules around interference.

Aidan O’Brien rarely raises his head above the parapet in terms of public opinions but did so earlier this year in relation to the interference rules and how they are implemented. He argued that risky race riding manoeuvres here are tolerated to an extent that doesn’t apply elsewhere.

The champion trainer pointed in particular to how jockey Shane Foley got a five-day ban for careless riding after winning the Matron Stakes on No Speak Alexander in September. O’Brien, whose horse Mother Earth was impeded in the incident, feels that was much too lenient.

On the same day O’Brien’s St Mark’s Basilica held on to a hugely valuable success in the Irish Champion Stakes despite carrying his rival Tarnawa almost across the entire track. Ryan Moore wasn’t penalised but O’Brien later conceded he should have been.

Dicey manoeuvres

Jockeys, however, ride to the culture in front of them and how the rules are currently being interpreted effectively facilitates dicey manoeuvres. Incidents of jockeys accidentally on purpose allowing horses drift across rivals can be seen on an almost daily basis both here and in Britain.

The nature of their job makes most riders very quick-thinkers. If winning a race is worth a few days’ suspension for breaking the rules then that tot is almost instinctive. And if isn’t then owners and trainers will be among the first to ask them why not.

There is an obvious answer to that.

Unpredictable thoroughbreds cutting across each other at up to 60kmh is inherently dangerous. Accidents are inevitable with sometimes terrible results. But that reality doesn’t need to be made worse by facilitating an environment which makes the job even more dangerous than it needs to be.

Reversing that culture requires the rules are enforced so the risk-reward calculation is flipped in favour of caution. That basically means the threat of disqualification and that requires buy-in from all participants.

Jockeys are in the hot-seat but are hardly independent from the interests of those owners and trainers who hire them.

At least one consequence of cleaner racing might be a more convincing case to present to insurers. There would surely be other positive outcomes too.