Racegoers are accustomed to hearing post-race explanations for poor performances. Among the most common is the detection of a laryngeal abnormality after the event. It is usually treated as an inconvenient footnote. In truth, it often explains far more than is acknowledged.

In a recent case, a heavily backed favourite failed to perform and was subsequently scoped after its next run, revealing a laryngeal issue. The finding was not dramatic, nor unusual. Such conditions are rarely sudden. They are typically pre-existing, progressive problems that surface only when a horse is asked to gallop freely under race pressure.

The rider, however, had already been punished for “failure to ride out”, the stewards concluding that the horse was not fully extended. When the scope report emerged, it was dismissed as irrelevant, not considered fresh evidence worthy of review.

This is where perspective matters. A horse struggling to breathe does not gallop willingly, let alone respond instantly to persuasion. Expecting full extension from a compromised airway is akin to demanding acceleration from a car starved of fuel. The effort may be there. The response will not.

Laryngeal abnormalities do not appear overnight. What appears overnight is official certainty. When medical evidence is selectively acknowledged, the process may be followed, but logic quietly pulls up lame.

For racegoers, the lesson is clear: poor performance, rider restraint and airway compromise are often intertwined. Ignoring one while judging the other rarely produces justice, only paperwork.