3 years, 7 months and 13 days for nothing

The shock news last Thursday that the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) is throwing in the towel on their own Referral case 3 years, 7 months and 13 days after they started investigating, and only a matter of days before the Referral Committee was due to hear the evidence, is hard to fathom.

On the 20th March 2020, just before the first Covid lockdown, the stewards at Dundalk racecourse held an enquiry into the running and riding of a horse named Yuften which had just finished second to in a Claiming race. The rider of Yuften reported that his mount had “moved poorly” and on subsequent veterinary examination the horse was found to be lame.

Under normal circumstances that might have been the end of the matter, but in the case of the Yuften race there had been very unusual betting activity and the stewards “having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, including betting trends in this race which the Stewards considered to require further investigation, the Stewards felt that they could not conclude the enquiry and they therefore referred the matter to the CEO of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.”

Very unusual betting activity (my words, not those of the stewards) is actually putting it mildly. On official ratings there were only two possible winners of that Claiming race, Yuften and Tony The Gent. Coincidently, the two horses were at that time in the same ownership and both trained by Denis Hogan.

Yuften was officially rated 17 lbs superior to Tony The Gent and taking into account the claim of the latter’s rider, Yuften still had a theoretical 10 lbs in hand. More than enough to win most races.

As a consequence of Yuften’s implied superiority the bookmakers made him their 2/5 favourite and Tony The Gent was next in the betting at 11/4. It was as big as 14/1 bar the two horses with some firms on the morning of the race.

By the time the race started at 2.30pm that afternoon there had been a seismic shift in the betting market. Yuften was completely friendless in the betting and was no longer favourite for a race which previous form and official ratings indicated he was most likely to win.

It was his stablemate, Tony The Gent, that had attracted all the money on the race (backed from 11/4 into odds-on favourite by the off). It was as if someone knew in advance that either Yuften wouldn’t perform anywhere near his ability or that his stablemate Tony The Gent had improved considerably.

The former scenario appears the more likely as Tony The Gent, having his 50th race, was an open book when it came to his ability at that stage of his career and he ran more or less to the same level of performance that afternoon in Dundalk as he had done three weeks earlier at the same course and three months later when he reappeared at Naas.

On the balance of probability someone or some people became aware in advance of the race that Yuften would under-perform and then proceeded to back the only other logical winner of the race, Tony The Gent, and possibly also laid Yuften to lose. This would explain the very unusual betting trends on the race.

So, over the last three and a half years one would presume that much of the IHRB’s investigation into the affair revolved around trying to find out who placed significant bets on Tony The Gent to win and/or laid Yuften to lose. Afterall, it was the betting trends on the race that “required further investigation” and caused the matter to be referred on in the first place.

Thursday’s revelation from the IHRB that it “had informed the Referrals Committee that it will not offer any evidence at the hearing of the referral in respect of the running and riding of Yuften” would be somewhat understandable if the reasons cited were to do with their own investigation finding nothing untoward in any bets placed on the race. But that is not what we have been told happened.

Instead we are told that it was a very recent disclosure from the respondent that scuppered their case. Everything appears to have been going to plan for the IHRB “until October of this year when expert veterinary reports which provided context for the performance of the horse in the race in question were finally submitted.”

It is these “expert veterinary reports,” which presumably prove some underlying issue with Yuften on the day of the race at Dundalk, that has collapsed their case.

To my mind, this new information about the health of Yuften on the day should actually strengthen a case in relation to abnormal betting trends on the race. It should indicate that someone in possession of that information, which was not in the public domain, could have profited from it by placing bets on his stablemate to win and/or laying Yuften to lose.

Of course my take on the case presumes that the IHRB did actually bother to investigate the betting trends thoroughly in the first place. How much actual investigating went on over the last three and a half years is questionable. Covid certainly put the case on the back-burner for some considerable period of the time. The matter was also originally referred to their then CEO Denis Egan, but he vacated the post in September 2021. He was then replaced by an interim-CEO before the current CEO Darragh O’Loughlin took the reins at the end of June 2022. There is a possibility that the trail had run cold by the time they got their act together.

A final point on this debacle is how ironic it is that the IHRB stated in their press release that it has asked the Referral Committee to give a decision on this case as the IHRB: “ is of the view that to enhance transparency and for the purpose of ensuring public confidence in the disciplinary process it would be appropriate in the circumstances to provide some explanation as to why the referral has been dealt with in this way.”

The IHRB also stated in the press release that it “remains committed to safeguarding the integrity and reputation of Irish horseracing and ensuring confidence in the sport is protected by robust and transparent regulatory practices.”

Considering it is the IHRB that is refusing to offer any evidence to the Referral Committee and the statement they issued last week couldn’t have been any less transparent it makes that final statement seem more aspirational than factual.

I find the ‘affordability checks’ saga in the UK fascinating. The campaign to alter the government's decision to mandate bookmakers to introduce these checks on punters has been spearheaded by Racing Post which itself has plenty of skin in the game as the vast majority of its revenue is earned through affiliate arrangements with bookmakers.

The affordability checks in their current proposed form are certainly a blunt instrument that will have a negative effect on horse racing’s finances, but they are born out of legitimate concerns for the welfare of ordinary people across society. The government policy is designed to protect vulnerable punters who have been exploited and in many cases systematically fleeced by a gambling industry juggernaut that ran unchecked for almost two decades.

The crux of the problem here is the horse racing industry’s complete dependence on gambling revenues. The sport has for years turned a blind eye to the often unscrupulous behaviour of betting companies and indirectly reaped the rewards. There was no outcry from the sport when cases surfaced about betting companies encouraging and incentivising known problem gamblers. No horse racing led campaigns to ban the ultra-addictive FOBTs in UK betting offices.

Within the racing bubble Racing Post’s relentless campaigning on this issue has had a significant impact and social media is now awash with the sport’s influencers looking for people to sign a petition (created by Jockey Club CEO Nevin Trusdale) to try and change the government’s policy.

While I agree that the proposed affordability checks are draconian in their current form and will have unintended negative consequences for recreational punters, I also believe that something significant needs to be done to change the way bookmakers deal with their customers.

The gambling industry itself has been surprisingly quiet with regards to the affordability checks and this either suggests that its main players don’t see it as the significant threat that the racing industry now does, or they are lobbying away in the background with the government to reach an acceptable compromise.

This is ‘safer gambling week’ and in fairness to the gambling industry it has belatedly embraced this type of initiative and all the major operators are now taking their responsibilities seriously. All the leading betting sites display an array of tools to help punters recognise if they have a problem with gambling and straightforward actions to help them address the problem.

I don’t believe the gambling industry would have implemented any of the above without government intervention.