Homesman (2nd left) badly hampered two runners at Limerick but kept the race © Photo Healy Racing
It's four months since the Turf Club introduced its new 'Running and Riding' rules. The impact in terms of making penalties stick has been dramatic. Eight 'Non-Trier' penalties have been handed out. Four were appealed. One was entirely successful and another partially so. Statistically it's hardly earth-shattering stuff which only proves how misleading statistics can be. Because culturally the new rules have been transformative.
That's not to say they're perfect. For instance the suspicion remains that a potential loophole remains for any trainer prepared to argue that once they give their instructions it's all out of their hands. But in the context of an integrity environment that had effectively turned regulation into a farce the difference between now and the start of the year is like night and day.
Any fears the new rule would just be a wordy variant on the old stewarding instinct to hit the little guy hard and let the big shot carry on regardless have proved to be groundless. There are none bigger than Coolmore and Ballydoyle so the impact of last month's Music Box appeal reverberated throughout the sport.
More alarmist concerns revealed by the trainers and jockeys associations have failed to come to pass too. Last week's enquiry into the debut run of Sarah Lynam's two year old, Philadelphia Story, at the Curragh was an example of how common-sense hasn't disappeared.
Even by the standards of a juvenile having its first run, Ronan Whelan was notably inactive on Philadelphia Story who finished well behind. But Whelan came back and reported how the filly felt pottery going to the start and he'd had her checked by the racecourse vet. She was judged OK to run. But when the horse continually changed its legs in the race, and given his pre-race concerns, Whelan basically left her alone. Sure enough Philadelphia Story was slightly lame after the race.
Just as the run demanded to be looked at under the new rules, so did the perfectly legitimate explanation of what had happened pass muster.
And so just four months after its introduction the new Rule 212 has restored much needed credibility to the Turf Club and its officials at the daily coal-face. It shows how quickly a culture can change. There are always those who see what they want to see but a lot of the more blatant examples of horses out for 'easies' have disappeared. And it's tempting to wonder how much good even a minor tweak of the interference rules might achieve in a similarly short time.
There has been no more stark an example of how skewed those rules are in favour of the offender over the victim than the recent Homesman case at Limerick when the winner hung dramatically and collided into rivals, one of which, Modern Approach, closed to within a length at the line. The stewards ultimately decided they couldn't be satisfied the winner had improved his position and left the result stand.
That such an obvious example of a horse's winning chance being impeded couldn't provoke an alteration only encourages jockeys to believe it can be worth taking one for the team in exchange for a few days suspension never mind any sense of general fair play entering into the equation.
But if the running and riding rules have been transformed by skilful use of the words 'Be Seen' could interference rules be effectively examined on the basis of flipping on its head the idea of stewards having to be satisfied an offender has improved its position in order to stand it down. Put the emphasis instead on the horse that's come off worse.
It would be a much needed change of tone if nothing else, placing the onus on the transgressor to defend in a stewards enquiry rather than the victim having to take the initiative, that is if the idea of jockeys evidence being heard at all is persevered with rather than dispensed with, as it should be.
It's a subtle but significant distinction, along the lines perhaps, and forgive some raw professional considerations here, of the difference in defamation law between the US legal system and here, the basic difference being that if I write Joe Bloggs is a k--b in Ireland, and it goes to court, I have to prove he is a indeed a k--b. In America Joe Bloggs has to prove he isn't.
The law is the same but the emphasis is different. Which is possibly why despite everything in Trump's America, the fake-news peddling mainstream media still feels empowered enough to go after the most powerful nut-job in the world while here it's difficult to express even the slightest criticism without a solicitor staring over your shoulder.
But to get back to the point, there needs to be a shift in tone when it comes to the interference rules and that requires examination and maybe even a rewording.
The Derby's reputation as racing's 'Blue Riband' event is regularly queried yet Epsom's history and allure still makes it resilient. But it's still difficult not to look at Churchill's likely absence this year and feel the great old race will be the poorer for it.
This is a 2,000 Guineas winner whose trainer and jockey have expressed confidence he will get ten furlongs but are unsure about a mile and a half. For decades that was regarded as possibly the ideal Derby profile, fitting in with the hoary old cliché about how if you know going to Epsom that your horse stays a mile and a half then it's probably too slow.
Yet Churchill looks set to stay at a mile which is no doubt a sound commercial call by Coolmore but inevitably removes a little lustre from this year's Derby.
Of course the decision is primarily a reflection of the overwhelming power and strength in depth available to Coolmore and if Cliffs Of Moher in particular continues to impress in his preparation and wins at Epsom then they'll have two English classic winning sons of Galileo instead of one.
Still it's Churchill that Aidan O'Brien has taken to referring to as "the big horse" and he won't be going for the race that is supposedly coveted above all others. So how coveted can it really be then?
