Irish racing needs to professionalise its disciplinary process to reassure public

Irish Times

2 days ago

Rather like a referee or a parking warden, being a voluntary race-day steward is a thankless task. Mostly, all they get out of it is lukewarm tea, a parking space and insults about their eyesight. Sometimes, though, there's a stonewall penalty or a car upside down on a zebra crossing. Like the day with Ta Na La at Wexford recently.
Ta Na La, trained by Ted Walsh and racing in the colours of his wife Helen, made her debut over fences in a five-runner novice chase. Ridden by claiming jockey Shane O'Callaghan, Ta Na La travelled strongly throughout the race, jumped well and had only the odds-on favourite Aspire Tower in front of her on the run to the last.
From there on,
the finish was notable for O'Callaghan's lack of urgency
. Aspire Tower ultimately won by more than four lengths, but it was the runner-up's performance that immediately attracted attention.
An inquiry into the running and riding of Ta Na La was called. Walsh wasn't in Wexford, so O'Callaghan was accompanied by the trainer's authorised representative. If a trainer isn't at a race meeting, they are required under
Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board
rules to have an authorised representative present.
READ MORE
O'Callaghan told the stewards how his instructions, issued directly from the trainer, were to jump off and get his mount settled as she can be very free in her races. He added he was told to get her jumping well, come home the best she could and not to use his whip.
The stewards decided the 'non-trier' rules had been broken in that the rider was 'not seen to have attempted to obtain from his mount timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible place'. They imposed the minimum sanctions. O'Callaghan was suspended for 14 days, Ta Na La suspended for 60 days, and Walsh was fined €3,000.
The critical phraseology in the relevant rule is 'not seen'. It's a critical weapon in the official armoury brought in by racing's regulatory body in 2017.
A series of high-profile 'non-trier' cases had been successfully appealed, leaving the authorities looking ineffective. Subjective interpretations of what might or might not be 'off' were all but impossible to prove up to legal standards. So, horses now had to be seen to try to obtain their best possible placing. By those standards the Ta Na La case looked straightforward.
Walsh's high-profile status as RTÉ's former racing pundit inevitably attracted attention. The Grand National-winning trainer lodged an appeal against his fine and the horse's suspension from racing, which was heard on Monday. O'Callaghan didn't appeal his penalty.
Walsh argued he wasn't afforded the opportunity to state his case on the day through his authorised representative and that under no circumstances was O'Callaghan instructed not to obtain from Ta Na La a timely, real and substantial effort to achieve the best possible placing.
Walsh said he'd instructed O'Callaghan not to use the whip if Ta Na La was well beaten. But she'd outrun expectations. He blamed the jockey for not making enough effort to show the racing public that he was achieving his best possible position.
Jockey Shane O'Callaghan. Photograph: Bryan Keane/Inpho
The IHRB statement on Monday's appeal outlines that Walsh's evidence was heard on a 'de-novo' basis, or for the first time. The three-person appeals board outlined how Walsh's authorised representative at Wexford was not asked by the stewards whether they were satisfied with O'Callaghan's ride.
After hearing Walsh's evidence they lifted his €3,000 fine. But the horse's suspension stood.
The outcome raises some questions, perhaps the most basic of which is why Walsh's authorised representative wasn't asked whether he was satisfied with O'Callaghan's ride? It seems an obvious thing to do in the circumstances.
The function of authorised representatives in such circumstances also appears less than clear. What role, if any, are they expected to fill? Walsh said he hadn't spoken to his about the race, particularly, and the man was a friend rather than an employee. So, what was he expected to contribute?
On a broader level, does an outcome like this reinforce concerns that the collective aspect to 'non-trier' breaches reflected in penalties for horse, trainer and jockey can work more in theory than in practise?
The proper outcome was reached in the end but the untangling of such an apparently straightforward case puts the spotlight back on how such disciplinary processes are carried out on Irish racecourses. The idea is to present a convincing regulatory deterrent that reassures the betting public. This ended up looking worryingly slipshod.
It underlines again the outmoded stewarding model in this country. Irish racing is an ultra-professional global business that, we are constantly told, is worth €2.5 billion a year. But it's shop window, the racecourse, is, in effect, policed by well-meaning amateur volunteers, different panels of which are dotted around the place.
If the industry really cares about public perception it needs to both professionalise and centralise its regulation.
There is no reason for running and riding inquiries to be held in a pressurised race-day environment on the ground. Everything that needs to be seen can be seen on camera at a central location by those paid and trained to interpret what's in front of them and correctly process any action that needs to be taken.
The betting and racing public are entitled to no less and won't thank anyone for not getting it.
Something for the Weekend
The weekend highlight is Sunday's French Derby, where once again much pre-race focus will be on the impact of the draw in an 18-runner field.
RIDARI
(3.05) is in stall 11, a case of could be worse but could be better too. He had to be snatched up in the final strides of the 'Poulains', which cost him places, and better luck now can see the Aga Khan runner go close.
The Cork runner-up
SAMBA TRAIN
(5.20) could progress enough to go one better in Saturday's Listowel finale.