Johnny Murtagh © Photo Healy Racing
As a rule, problems with rules are to do with enforcement rather than the rules themselves. But Irish racing’s ‘non-trier’ regulations are an exception. They can be both restrictive and too open to interpretation. They also have to be applied in an environment where proving intent up to Burden of Proof ‘M’Lud’ standard is all but impossible. So the rules need a rewrite if stewards are to have any chance and either literally or figuratively they need to include two words - ‘Be Seen.’
Rule 212 currently states: “The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse is given a full opportunity to win or of obtaining the best possible place.”
There’s nothing wrong with that in theory. It’s basically a mirror of the rule which applies in that paradise of propriety, Hong Kong. Except there it gets enforced because there’s a direct link between punter confidence and prizemoney levels. The self-interested consequence is that penalties tend to stick. Here they don’t.
Almost by definition any ‘non-trier’ case goes through an appeals system that allows the case to be filtered through layers of legal argument which, given that such penalties are basically expressions of opinion, leaves the process wide open to sufficient doubt being introduced by any competent lawyer.
The list of possible explanations for any perceived jiggery is long, from veterinary for instance to a horse’s individual quirks and anything else you like, to the extent that the most the official process can often hope to achieve is an admission of misjudgement by a jockey. And we all make mistakes.
The Turf Club is currently examining the prospect of a major Rule 212 rewrite. Such a move is to be commended. It also means now is the time to acknowledge the importance of appearances.
This is a bugbear with many racing professionals who argue that just because a jockey isn’t pushing and flailing doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to obtain their best possible place. And there is substance to that, sometimes. But like it or not, how it looks on the track is important to those of us watching, even in a jurisdiction where the industry’s financial model effectively makes punters irrelevant.
That remains Irish racing’s fundamental flaw. However if the future really is a global and digital betting market then the importance of how the game here is policed, and how it appears to be policed, must be properly addressed. So how difficult a Rule 212 rewrite would it be to state: “The rider of every horse shall take, and BE SEEN to take, all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race...”
It would hardly be a cure-all but it would at least put an onus on jockeys to at least go through the motions in races and if they don’t, they would at least have to properly explain why not. It would also put racecourse stewards on a sounder footing. Any extenuating circumstances, whatever they may be, can be introduced later in the process.
But day to day, it could help deter some jockeys, and those employing them, from being seen to ride the system completely and subsequently arguing on the vague basis of the supposed feel a horse is giving, something impossible to conclusively dispute.
The reality is that unless someone squawks - which never ever happens - then proving intent in running and riding cases is impossible. Getting an admission of an error of judgement is probably the most that can ever be achieved. But it’s important that such judgements are pursued, and be seen to be pursued.
On a separate matter, is it coincidental that the recent examples of how difficult it is for the Turf Club to follow through on penalties appears to have resulted in an increasingly dismissive attitude from some professionals towards those charged with policing them?
On Friday a running an enquiry at Limerick into Knockraha Pylon resulted in explanations being noted. However the horse’s trainer Adrian Maguire was found in breach of Rule 272 “concerning his conduct in the stewards room and having considered his previous record in this regard, they fined him €250.” It’s just over a month since Davy Russell got hit with a 14 day ban for his attitude and behaviour towards officials at Clonmel, an incident he subsequently apologised for.
Privately, some stewards believe they are viewed almost contemptuously by certain figures among those they are charged with keeping in line. No one wants servile forelock-touching; but it isn’t good for anyone when those charged with regulation wind up being regarded as mere irritants.
It’s hardly just the Turf Club getting it in the neck. The BHA seems determined to stumble from one cock-up to another as indicated by the dropping of a retrospective ‘running and riding enquiry’ into a ride by Martin Harley at Chelmsford over a fortnight ago. It transpired Harley had given a complete explanation for his ride to the raceday stewards and had no case to answer.
It does raise the topic of retrospective looks at races in general and the question of why they might not be undertaken more. Of course an automatic defence is that if the stewards on the ground didn’t see anything to concern them, why should anyone else. But a lot happens on every race day and things can get missed. Other elements can come to light subsequently too.
So if there’s merit on re-examining a case then time shouldn’t be a consideration: surely it’s better to get it done right than to get it done quickly.
Finally, kudos to Johnny Murtagh for his contribution to a JETS clip aiming to encourage those with addiction issues to seek help. It’s a fascinating insight into an admirable man and can only help anyone caught in the grip of addiction.
As for the storm in the ante-post teacup over Douvan’s Tingle Creek participation, and the whole “all the people we respect are on” bit, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that a lot of bookmaker speak should simply be seen but not heard.
