Thistlecrack is clear in the straight at Kempton© Photo Healy Racing
The New Year is set to be a critical one for the Turf Club and its future credibility. If 2016 saw focus switching from the beleaguered regulatory body to Horse Racing Ireland then 2017 is likely to see it return to how the racing and bloodstock industries are policed. A number of new initiatives in terms of drug-testing and rule-changes are in the pipeline. But as is often the case with regulation, the key question isn’t rules but how they are enforced.
The current reality on the ground in relation to drug-testing is unsustainable. As practises such as ‘milk-shaking’ and the improper use of cobalt are becoming almost old-hat in other major racing jurisdictions, in Ireland we’re still waiting for a testing system to be put in place. On the back of the Anti-Doping Task Force Report we are assured such testing will begin later in 2017. By which time, who knows what other methods the cheats will have adopted.
If that seems unreasonably pessimistic, leaving racing’s integrity service in something of a no-win situation, then it does no one any good to presume that cheating methods aren’t constantly evolving.
The presumption has to be - and seen to be — that cheats are always a step ahead. The old line about acting if presented with evidence simply won’t cut it anymore. It’s lazy and feeds into the prejudice that the last thing the Turf Club wants to do is effectively police its own for fear of finding out too much about their own.
That’s why the most important step the regulator, and by definition the thoroughbred industry as a whole, can come to in 2017 is to put in place a system which allows a thoroughbred to be effectively and meaningfully tracked and tested by Turf Club personnel throughout its life.
That this isn’t already the case is the gaping gap in the sport’s anti-doping credibility. It is a ludicrous state of affairs and demands the question of the breeding industry in particular as to why not: if it isn’t properly answered the public will inevitably come to its own conclusions.
But ultimately every proposed new step will come down to those in authority having the political will to actually enforce the aspirations.
That will certainly be the case with the first major Turf Club initiative of the year in relation to its re-writing of the Rule 212 ‘non-trier’ regulations due later this month. The current regulation is no different to other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong but has become all but unworkable in Ireland due to a combination of both Turf Club timidity and increasingly overwhelming legal influence through the appeals system in particular.
The rule rewrite is designed to be a response to that, and in particular is set to concentrate on penalising rides construed to be ‘misjudged’ rather than outright stop-jobs.
Considering legal levels of proof in a ‘stop-job’ are all but impossible, the logic of going down the misjudgement route is understandable. But the fear must be that little will actually change except for jockeys getting hung even further out to dry when everyone knows they’re almost invariably doing what they’re told to do by owners and trainers.
It could also encourage the emergence of ‘cop a plea’ culture with stewards going for a verdict they feel they can deliver rather than dealing with a case on its specific merits. Such expediency will do nothing for the Turf Club’s fight to restore its credibility.
Ultimately it’s still hard to avoid the conclusion that at some stage, maybe even in 2017, that fight will come down to the Turf Club doing the last thing it wants to do — back itself, its rules and its officials through a tortuous combination of appeals and, if required, civil courts. And to do so against substantial industry figures rather any token little guy.
Such a step would be painful on many levels, involve quite a lot of public dirty linen washing and also man enduring any amount of supposed expertise on why they’re wrong: it would also cost a fortune in legal fees. But for racing’s regulation to be taken seriously, at some stage it probably will have to hang its hat on the Supreme Court judgement that it is the regulator’s job to enforce the rules of racing and hang the consequences.
It’s very early in the New Year to visit hostage-to-fortune territory but what hell; 6-4 Thistlecrack for the Gold Cup anyone? Roll Up- Roll Up.
Actually anyone taking such a price about any race over ten weeks away, never mind the Gold Cup, should probably be upping their meds. But since 5-4 is the best out there about the King George winning novice then clearly Thistlecrack-hysteria abounds.
There’s so much to like about this horse that coming up with another to beat him in March is a toughie. But a combination of Thistlecrack himself and 22 fences might be the real stumbling block to an exceptional novice talent. Extravagance in the King George is one thing: the Gold Cup is a very different beast.
Amidst all the enthusiasm too it’s easy to forget as banal a factor as actual form. Yes Thistlecrack put the race to bed brilliantly before the straight, and Tom Scudamore was showboating on the run-in, but the bare evidence is that Thistlecrack beat the last of the five runners, Josses Hill, by seven lengths. How many other horses would be fancied to do the same over three miles?
Douvan would certainly be fancied to do so if he was to try three miles which by reading the tea-leaves since his Christmas victory might be a long time happening - if ever.
The logic seems to be that Douvan has too much speed to believe he can stay three miles, never mind the three miles and two and half furlongs of the Gold Cup. But it’s impossible to find out for sure until it’s tried which admittedly is an easy argument to make from the outside. It is a logic however which runs notably contrary to the National Hunt game’s sporting view of itself.
No doubt Douvan’s presence will have helped boost crowd figures for the Christmas festivals and all credit to the racecourses involved. Despite that it’s hard not to conclude the most important factor in the attendance boosts was also the most arbitrary — good weather.
And finally, as for ITV’s new racing coverage, and the concentration of attention accompanying it, I can honestly say I really, really don’t care. Is there anything more boring than hacks talking hackery?
