Big-Picture Change

'Taking Ownership' is a typically imprecise piece of corporate-speak, which doesn't mean it's completely meaningless either, unless of course it is applied to those loudly declaring themselves possessed of a stake in that entity known as Irish racing and simultaneously appear unwilling to acknowledge any ownership of it at all when it suits them.

Racing's economics are on the up again so there is even more of an urge right now to bask in the official Irish-racing script which is presented to the world and which professionals within the industry are keen to figure in.

Those charged with selling the industry can hardly be blamed for making that script as impressive as possible, and it can appear very impressive indeed, the proper happy ship and all that, which isn't a trivial point since the whole financial caboodle depends on government subsidy and it is important to our political lords and masters that the ship appears very proper indeed.

A vital part of that propriety involves regulation, both in terms of PR and, more importantly, in terms of confidence. Since we are told racing's long-term finances will revolve around income generated from a worldwide betting market, it would seem to be in the interests of racing professionals here to take a stake in the ownership of the regulation game.

Except that requires acknowledging that punters might be worth regarding as more than mere marks. It also requires acknowledging how taking a big-picture and long-term view means looking up occasionally from ordinary self-interest. And it requires an acknowledgement from racing professionals that they actually have a stake in making regulation as effective as possible.

However there's no shortage of examples of how many continue to pursue a policy of there being no interest like self-interest; extending that policy sometimes merely to protect their own, a closing of the ranks that's unsettling sometimes, and on other occasions reeks of mere cute-hoordom.

The laws of libel being as they are, giving examples is impossible although anyone paying any sort of attention knows there's hardly a shortage. And no one knows that better than the very professionals who will bitch and moan about others playing fast and loose with the integrity rules yet resolutely row in with 'their own' when it comes down to actually doing something about it.

All this is very big picture stuff. And it can be argued that the temptation to break the rules is systemic considering so much is wound up in handicapping which is more or less an official invitation to bend the rulebook to breaking point. It can also be argued that waiting to find an ethic in the racing game could involve waiting forever, and high-falutin' ideas about integrity are fine for those able to afford it.

But there are plenty well able to afford plenty, and still they can seem unable or unwilling to give a toss about how what happens inside the racing tent is perceived by those outside it, continue to possess a supreme sense of entitlement, and then supposedly wonder when racing in this country gets periodically dismissed as dodgy.

There was an illustrative small-picture example last week with the punishment for the John M Burke trained Hunters Of Acres at Tipperary.

The horse got banned for 42 days and the jockey wound up with sixteen days. What was interesting though was Burke's E1,500 fine for "having run a horse in a condition that precluded her chance of winning." This was after the trainer had told the panels Hunters Of Acres was fifty per cent fit on her previous start and eighty per cent at Tipperary.

Quite why Burke offered this information is unclear. The idea that many of his colleagues would be so forthcoming, and so precisely too, is hard to credit. But once Burke did, the stewards were able to act on the rule.

But here's the thing: does anyone believe running horses in a condition that precludes their chance of winning is a rare event? Does anyone believe it only happens to small-time trainers lacking state of the art facilities? In fact does anyone believe it doesn't happen regularly in some form or another?

Stewards know what goes on better than most. These same stewards are presumably well capable of recognising an animal at less than optimum fitness. But the idea they could pull any trainer, never mind a high-profile one, through the evidence of their eyes alone is unthinkable. Because how do you prove something so intangible in a court of law?

It's easy to imagine how such an accusation would provoke many trainers into high dudgeon, pausing only a pause to reach for their solicitor. And that threat is often enough to deter any meaningful action by officials because the legal burden of proof is almost impossible to establish in racing. How do you establish intent?

So the pantomime on the ground continues, smothered in thick layers of piety. The question of how effective regulation can be imposed in such an environment has to be meaningfully addressed but ultimately it requires professionals taking ownership of a system which after all is mostly populated by their own anyway.

It needs people to play ball with the system, actually even, perish the thought, hold their hands up when caught out instead of reaching for the law. Maybe even not hang a jockey out to dry and just take a penalty on the chin. Actually allow their regulator to do the job it is charged with and regulate rather than holding the persistent threat of the courts over the system all the time.

No one expects spotless purity. Certainly the idea that people might play ball with the rules appears to be an impossibly high bar. But the current system is being ridden bareback and the official script is fooling only the gullible or those with an agenda. Ultimately that will cost those professionals within the Irish racing tent because fewer and fewer will believe what's being presented to them.

Change requires a lot of people to grow up and lose this childish 'them and us' attitude to how their game - and they know it is their game - is policed. At the moment, the regulatory atmosphere is more redolent of 'The Field' and a 'tell 'em nothin' clannishness that's at odds with how a modern professional industry should operate.

Maybe the idea of such big-picture change is hopelessly naive: but if it is, and racing's great and good can't grow up, or put up, then they might consider actually shutting up: because the big-script is full of empty words that are becoming increasingly hard to listen to.