An Irish Solution To An Irish Problem

Proof of just how litigious the policing of racing has become is stamped all over the Turf Club's radical new running and riding regulations. They cover a multitude of angles and scenarios to an extent unparalleled anywhere else in the world. The pity is that they have come to be so necessary but kudos to the expertise that's clearly gone into them. The regulations are in place - what counts is how seriously they are enforced. And ultimately the greatest signal of seriousness is likely to be that final fateful step towards professional stewarding.

Professionalism is not about ability. Nor is amateurism about incompetence. Ruby Walsh started as an amateur possessing all the natural talent in the world. But professionalism is about expertise NOW. Only a moron entrusts a serious wiring problem to an apprentice spark even if they might eventually turn into an electrical genius. So how long before the billion Euro racing industry entrusts it's policing to accountable professionals?

It won't mean mistakes will never happen. But it would mean consequences when they do, unlike, for instance, the unfortunate prosecution of last year's Pyromaniac case which has embarrassingly wound up with the Turf Club paying out costs all-round. If professionals did that the least that would be expected, given the level of public money that goes into the integrity services, is an explanation.

That was just the latest in a sorry list of examples of the regulatory body's inability to make its penalties stick. And while it's curious that the old Rule 212 regulations about 'non-triers' is almost identical to the one that applies so effectively in Hong Kong, the reality on the ground is that an Irish solution to an Irish problem was urgently required.

What's encouraging is how the breadth of the new regulations could hardly be wider, effectively giving licence to enquire into anything that might catch the eye of a "reasonable and informed member of the racing public." No doubt the first thing any defence solicitor will attempt to do in any future case is ask for a definition of "reasonable and informed" and argue accordingly.

But in theory at least it opens things up for officials. It is inarguably good that an onus has been put on jockeys to be "seen" to make an effort. That reduces wriggle room for those prepared to cheat. The gap which encouraged new evidence to be flourished like a magician in front of a dazzled appeals panels has been closed too, as has any prohibition on such panels being confined to dealing with a very specific regulation clause put in front of them.

This is all welcome, and vital too: enforcement needs to be hung on a solid regulatory framework. The theory is in place. What will be fascinating is the practicality of its day to day implementation.

The Jockeys Association has already said it favours Rule 212 cases being automatically referred, arguing that the nature of 'non-trier' cases are so complicated, and require so much analysis, that it is unfair to expect under-pressure race-day stewards to properly prosecute them. Some will suspect 'self-interest' in that attitude and practically there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't happen.

But such concerns aren't completely groundless either given the course so many appeals have taken in recent years and the stringency of some of the penalties.

The new rules have the potential to remove much of the 'legalese' from the equation. But they are still going to be enforced by amateurs mostly embedded in the industry who might be amenable to being steered by a stipe' but are not obliged to be. Instead they are mostly masters and mistresses of their own destiny, policing the shop-window of a billion Euro industry on their days off. In perception terms alone it smacks of frivolity.

Professionalism is no panacea. But it would hardly be unreasonable to expect skilled professionals fully on top of the rulebook to size up race-day situations, quickly parse the elements involved down to a decision, issue appropriate penalties and get it right NOW. And if such expectations aren't met, there had better be a good explanations as to why not.

For the moment these new rules are significant and potentially a much needed boost to the credibility of Irish racing's integrity service. They're a first step. The next step is properly implementing them. And in the current spirit of regulatory reform which is circulating alongside record levels of funding, why can't the industry consider in the short term what is the inevitable long-term step of professional stewarding: why not reach for a solution before desperation forces you to.

Horse Racing Ireland's 2016 report confirmed how Celtic Tiger levels of finance are floating around again. Betting tax revenue significantly boosted by offshore and online returns was only €7 million off what racing received from the state last year and HRI's expectations are that the gap will be filled before the end of the decade, especially if there's an increase in tax rates. So the ambition is that racing here will be theoretically at least fully funded in future without annual recourse to the exchequer.

It's hardly surprising that HRI wants such a structure ring-fenced for them or that they argue state intervention is a reality in all jurisdictions, including those with a Tote monopoly. It's also not surprising that those involved in the industry think it's a great idea that they should get 100 per cent of a pot which is fifteen per cent filled at most by their own product. But such a structure will hardly encourage racing here to gets its house in order, or tap into global digital betting markets by making it more attractive to punters. Where's the motivation.

And finally, I know we've been here before but ahead of the upcoming Pegasus World Cup Invitational, not to mention with almost the whole of 2017 lurking ahead of us, Jon Lovitz has once again posed the most profound and existential question of all - "what is a gobshite?"

Answers on a postcard folks.