Trainer Brian Johnston got it horribly wrong on two counts last Saturday when giving jockey Danny Nikolic a fearsome "spray" during a stewards enquiry into the hoop's ride on his horse, Trustus, in the Winter Championship Final.

From a form analyst's perspective, Johnston was simply wrong in his assessment of the horse and where it should have been positioned in the run, where it was physically capable of being positioned in the run and, post-race, in asserting that Nikolic made the wrong positional choice.

As for his choice of words at the enquiry, well ... he was simply out of line.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with trainers lodging a complaint to stewards in line with protocols should they have a problem with the way their horse was ridden. One could argue they are in fact duty-bound to do exactly that on behalf of punters who lost money on their horse. But accusing a rider of "not trying" at an open-to-the-media enquiry is at best forgetting that everyone is entitled to protect their reputation through the law courts should they choose.

Unfortunately for Danny Nikolic, who recently was cleared of any serious charges at a long-running and highly publicized enquiry (read the BPL account of it here), being involved in another controversial situation is a hassle he simply doesn't need and - in this writer's opinion - doesn't deserve, as he seeks to re-establish his credentials as a top-class rider.

While the case brought against him by Racing Victoria's integrity department involved a number of grey areas such as what was discussed with whom and in what context - and, yes, it was as complicated as that - the big advantage for him in this situation is that the cases, both for and against, are there for everyone to see.

Was it a poor ride? Was the horse poorly positioned? Did the choices the jockey made result in the horse finishing further back than it should have?

Well for this writer who spends far too much of his time analyzing race replays, the answers are no, no and no!

So, surely, before any suggestion is made of a dodgy or suspicious ride, a case has to be put forward that the horse was poorly positioned and/or ridden.

Just because a horse didn't perform as well as you hoped as trainer or owner, doesn't give you the right to publicly vent your spleen and use the hoop as a scapegoat.

As background for the non-racing or "spring carnival" reader, racehorses generally run to an established pattern. Leaders usually lead, swoopers - or backmarkers - usually settle at the back of the field as they take longer to get into a comfortable galloping and breathing pattern and have a shorter yet more explosive finishing sprint, and the rest of the field fit somewhere in the middle depending on barriers, intent, fitness, etc.

So to really simplify everything, the art of tactics, commonly known amongst the racing fraternity as working out the speed map, is to figure out what the composition of the field will be after a few hundred metres. That means not only working out where each horse will be positioned, but - and this is of most relevance to last Saturday - how fast the field will be going.

Just because the trainer wants a jockey to be sitting third on the fence behind the leader doesn't mean it's capable of doing so.

Johnston's beef seems to be that's where the horse was positioned two starts back when Trustus won at Moonee Valley, so Nikolic should have had exactly the same game plan.

However that race was of lesser class and slower early tempo.

Here's the start of the speed map summary that I sent out to my clients the night before the now controversial race:

Speed Map summary: There should be really good pace here. Jungle Ruler always leads. Doubtful Jack, Dr Doute's, Savquaw, Outlandish Lad usually lead, and Philda, Trustus, Offenders, Tiakanui, Command Prince & Silky Smooth race handy to the speed.

Well there was really good speed, with the evidence being that the first six horses at the half way point of the race finished 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th & 15th (last).

Trustus finished 10th.

The interesting link to the two controversies, apart from Nikolic himself, is that a key issue surrounding the first enquiry was the use of form analysts by jockeys and how they manage their relationships with them. In light of the second enquiry, the question has to asked of Johnston if he used anyone who could give him an accurate and independent assessment of his horse's best position in running.

His instructions pre-race and his actions post-race strongly suggest he didn't.

("Racetrack" Ralphy Horowitz is a full-time racing analyst for private clients and media commentator for Sport 927. He is a former producer at The Footy Show, Sunday Footy Show, 3AW & SEN.)