Kill Or Cure

Racing justice is essentially cosmetic, an exercise that racing’s stakeholders choose to buy into. History shows us the real justice system is turned to when it really counts. Even if it doesn’t get to the High Court, its spectre looms, always the elephant in the steward’s room. Trying to make racing justice more than merely cosmetic requires a lot more than more cosmetics. But it should be done because the current system isn’t fit for purpose.

The essential reason Irish racing’s integrity system is so flawed is due to the irrelevance of what is a vital stakeholder in most other jurisdictions — the punter. I’m not going to outline again why here but rather provide you with a link to a piece published a couple of weeks ago as part of the day job.

www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/irish-racing-leads-world-but-its-financial-model-is-badly-flawed-1.2605725

If that’s why the whole thing is a mess, and any meaningful change in that reality looks a long, long way away, then clawing the integrity system back from the jaws of irrelevance is a herculean task. It requires stakeholders to fundamentally alter a system that works for them very well in order to voluntarily get tough with themselves: asking for that is asking a lot, a saintliness not to be found anywhere, never mind within an industry containing racing’s sulphuric tang.

But the current model doesn’t work. So much was obvious again at the Noble Emperor appeals. What was fundamentally a judgement call by the Limerick stewards - as almost all steward’s verdicts are - was subjected to a legal grilling by four sides armed to the teeth with barristers and solicitors.

In real life, barristers tussle over the crucial element of doubt, either trying to providing one, or denying one, usually on the basis of factual evidence. Rare is the running and riding enquiry that throws up such definitive evidence since that fundamentally requires either someone confessing, or jockeys riding with ‘not-off’ signs hanging around their necks.

So it comes down to judgement and any barrister who can’t inject an element of doubt into such a scenario, particularly given racing’s peculiar political circumstances, should return their fee.

In something as subjective and blurry as a running and riding enquiry, or almost any substantial integrity issue, an element of doubt is usually readily available unless someone squawks. And we know that nobody in Irish racing squawks. So the result is a lot of posturing and activity that ultimately seems to conjure up very little bar hefty invoices by the lawyers involved.

If the goal is to achieve credibility with the vast bulk of the betting public then it has failed miserably. Much closer to home, it will be either a very stubborn or very silly racing official who examines the Noble Emperor judgement and reckons it worth their time persevering with any supposed new ‘get tough’ policy, a policy which has surely died a death barely before it even began.

Instead the outlook is likely to be more mealy-mouthed apologies for a dysfunctional system, with apologists of all castes trotting out the same tired old cant about Turf Club reform as if the problem is somehow solely confined to procedures within a single increasingly sidelined and powerless organisation. It isn’t.

The Turf Club is just one element to an entire industry in possession of the finance structure to continue doing more or less what it wants regardless of how dysfunctional its integrity system is. Actual meaningful change requires that industry to, in the dreadful corporate phrase, take ownership.

That, effectively, equates to turkeys voting for Christmas: much easier to indulge in some loud deck-chair rearranging, and fine-sounding expressions of intent, instead.

Nevertheless the integrity system’s reputation and relevance is now at such low ebb that actually meaningfully restoring it could come down to finally facing the feared doomsday scenario by entrusting the cosmetic to the judicial, a kill or cure roll of the dice based on last year’s Supreme Court decision in relation to the Turf Club’s power to enforce the rules of racing, and how licence-holders are bound by those rules.

Pursuing it would require support, both financial and political, from those in control of the politics and the money within Irish racing. It would also require taking on a ‘big gun’ to banish accusations of tokenism. And it would require the spine to risk defeat.

But even defeat would be better than what currently applies because to anyone without an agenda, the status quo is transparently failing. And defeat might force a realistic re-examination by those in charge. As things stand expecting an industry to change by itself, without any self-interest to do so, is unrealistic.

On a different topic, it’s easy to see to logic of Willie Mullins’ decision to withdraw Vroum Vroum Mag from her Sandown engagement on Satuday, just as easy as it is to suspect the champion trainer’s dudgeon over the wording of the rule under which the stewards fined him is a case of trying to have his cake and eat it.

Mullins was judged to have “shown a wilful disregard for the interests of racegoers and punters.” Vroum Vroum Mag was declared to run as part of his tilt at the British trainer’s title. Once the chance to win that had disappeared, Mullins took her out. One can see his motivation but in terms of the rules it smacked of taking the mickey.

It will be fascinating to examine the impact of Mullins’s title bid in Britain when it comes to this week’s Punchestown festival. Maybe there won’t be any but since the comparative bar he set with last year’s astounding 16 winner tally is stratospherically high it’s tough to believe Mullins, even with the strength of his unparalleled team, can fight on two fronts without some impact.