Logic Must Apply

The announcement by Curragh chief executive Derek McGrath that he's leaving the post in October sees a lightning rod figure depart the equation at Irish racing's controversial HQ. Many, it seems, within racing won't weep at his departure, just as one suspects few tears will be shed by McGrath himself. What remains though is the quandary of getting people to engage with the Curragh.

That's why McGrath's comments about a lack of clarity as to what those in charge actually want for Irish racing's HQ are important - Curragh chief executive Derek McGrath confirms departure. Whoever steps in still faces that central issue as well as industry politics that can often focus on sectional interests over big picture considerations.

By any standard the machinations of the horse game here make for particularly dangerous waters. McGrath's relative unfamiliarity with racing, and the fact he couldn't be identified as being in any particular camp, might have been regarded as a plus for steering through Irish racing's biggest ever capital development project. But ultimately it looked to leave him on the back foot too often.

At times the former European rugby boss hasn't helped himself with a rather lofty attitude. That can't have helped sometimes when dealing with deep-rooted industry practises such as ticketing where entitlement often trumps best commercial practise. A more experienced racing operator might have tip-toed around such sensitivities more sure-footedly.

That was but one element which contributed to other privately expressed complaints about a supposed high-handedness by the Curragh management. But presuming McGrath was on some solo run in challenging such industry norms presumes too much. New to racing he might be, but he's hardly some corporate ingénue. Such a tone comes from the top. And that top is the Curragh board.

If McGrath presumed he had their backing then his decision to step down is stark evidence he was wrong. Various sources suggest the tide had turned against him even before the Irish Derby festival. But criticism about race-day facilities for a less than 12,000 Derby crowd, as well as the positioning of the Pretty Polly Stakes on the Friday, seems to have been a tipping point.

If Brian Kavanagh didn't mean to undermine McGrath with some post-Derby public comments the net result was the same. The HRI boss was responding directly to questions. But considering how nimble he can be sometimes in the face of such quizzing, the significance of Irish racing's top official, and a Curragh board member, responding as he did clearly wasn't lost in the corridors of power.

Of course such boardroom manoeuvring is a long way from downstairs at ground level at the Curragh. What isn't are McGrath's views on the apparent failure to precisely identify what kind of racetrack those upstairs, who've privately invested millions at the facility, actually want. Because that suggests a complacency about being happy with things as they are.

Considering €36 million of public money was put into the pot that's not good enough. It suggests racing's insular instincts are alive and well. It will certainly cement widely held prejudices about the whole Curragh project being little more than a very expensive white elephant for an elite few rather than something with ambitions to serve the many.

At times McGrath did seem to needlessly make rods for his own back. But that might have been part of a brief to go in and shake some industry norms up. If that was the case then he's entitled to feel a little sore at how events have unfolded. Then again chief execs are paid to carry the can sometimes. But he isn't the first interloper into racing to be left bruised and he won't be the last.

Separately, if rules are to work they have to be enforced properly. There's no point in trying to apply those rules if it pays to break them. That's plainly ridiculous. The problem with racing's whip regime is that it pays to break it. Counter arguments about nuance and degree and flexibility are redundant against such a contradiction. The whip rule is racing's spare p---k at a wedding.

English trainer Charlie Fellowes opened up the debate yet again last week when arguing that his first Royal Ascot winner, Thanks Be, should have been disqualified because jockey Hayley Turner used her whip four strokes more than the permitted seven.

Fellowes argued that changing social attitudes mean use of the whip is becoming more and more of a PR own-goal. That's a subjective opinion many of us happen to agree with it. But in terms of regulating whip use he had objective logic on his side when arguing that disqualification for exceeding the number of permitted strokes is required to change behaviour.

There are legitimate although hardly conclusive arguments against banning whips for anything but safety and correctional purposes. However imposing limits and then permitting jockeys to benefit from exceeding them - with commensurate pay-offs for owners, trainers and punters who've backed the horse - is a fudge that achieves neither one thing nor the other.

Fellowes' contribution reheated an old debate that once again prompted suggestions about racing being so unique a proposition that logic doesn't have to apply to it. I'm sorry but logic must apply. And it's because it does that the most important contribution came from Turner herself when conceding she wouldn't have ridden Thanks Be like that if it meant a two or three month ban.

In order to be effective any regulation requires a penalty strong enough to deter those tempted to break it. For years now that hasn't been the case and we're left with a self-defeating hotch-potch which leaves the sport wide open to accusations of expediency. When the stakes are rich enough jockeys will breach the rules. Turner's admission indicates that's no accident.

Arguing that jockeys can't count to seven in Britain, or eight here, or five in France, is an insult to their intelligence and ours. Jockeys ride to the culture that applies. If the culture is created whereby exceeding the limit means disqualification then one or two controversial cases might occur before minds get quickly concentrated. Jockeys ride to rules that are enforced.

Fellowes held up Christophe Soumillon's whip-happy rides on Thunder Snow in the Breeders Cup Classic as an example of grisly abuse of the stick. He has a point although leaving the jurisdiction for an example was hardly necessary. Even the blessed Frankie Dettori has been known to get heavy handed on his US trips!

But Soumillon is still the top rider in France where the stroke limit is five. He rides within the rules there, although presumably if the pay-off is big enough he will break them without fear of disqualification. His Thunder Snow spin however does shows his willingness to really cut loose when permitted.

That also casts doubt on those claims about the modern whip being little more than some sort of tickling stick - otherwise why use it so enthusiastically when allowed if its effect is supposedly so limited?

Speaking of Frankie Dettori he's going to be in Killarney on Wednesday. The last time he was in The Kingdom was 21 years ago at a track that doesn't even exist now - Tralee. There was genuine excitement at the time about someone so box office riding in Kerry. A crowd of 6,000 turned up. It will be interesting to see if the Italian superstar adds to the gate in Killarney.

He should because over two decades later he's possibly even more box office and is racing's one truly recognisable figure. It doesn't hurt either that he's riding as well as ever. That's some feat at 48.