Reds Under The Bed Happiest presenting the whole 'Your Heart Is Racing' brochure bit to the world, the sport seems spooked at its own reflection to the outside world in recent weeks. The sorry Davy Russell saga continues to rumble on. And work practise headlines generated by Ballydoyle's Labour Court challenge to a Workplace Relations Commission notice over working time regulations aren't finished yet. Those already out there will have been an eye-opener to the general public. Tales of 19 hour days and stable staff working up to 28 days in a row are stark if you're one of the majority for whom the horse game barely registers beyond one Grand National to the next. That has led to some valid debate on when volunteering for extra work becomes obligatory, and comment on when employers should step in and say enough, as well as more implausible suggestions such as each horse having two grooms to look after it. Ballydoyle could afford such a panacea but it would be a commercial death-knell for most other outfits. That the point was made at all illustrates just how alien an environment the bloodstock industry is to so many. There's a lot riding on the Labour Court verdict which is expected within a fortnight and which basically comes down to racing's entitlement to come under a definition of agriculture. At the hearing one senior counsel asked how could cleaning out stables, feeding a horse and minding a horse when it is travelling not count as caring for animals. And he's right. Except the same argument could easily be used for a pet-grooming business and that isn't bucking for an agriculture exemption. There can hardly be a sector that doesn't believe itself deserving of special treatment. But as a lot of people have found out racing really is different. Maybe there are those who work with horses just because it's a job but they're in a minority. Most get involved because it's just that little bit different, and exciting and infectious and maddening and all the rest of it. Flexibility is a prerequisite and that's OK considering what's involved. There's a temptation sometimes to paint the lot of people working at racing's coalface in rather Victorian terms. Yes the lot of stable staff involves hard and sometimes dangerous work which is often not very well paid. But it's OTT to place it in some indentured slave context. No one is forced to do it. Acknowledging that is not to indulge in the kind of Reds under the Bed stuff cropping up in relation to a supposed potential threat from left wing politicians taking an undue interest in racing. Or how Workplace Relations Commission examination threatens the supposed scourge of unionisation. If the horse game can't take a little scrutiny then it's got a bigger problem than image. In fact the reality is that on this issue it's got a strong hand. The definition of agriculture under new employment law legislation as raising animals or crops for human consumption is plainly too narrow. And it doesn't matter what your politics are, it is plain to anyone how racing is different in terms of strict working hours. It is no huge ask to acknowledge that and reconcile it with making sure employers don't exploit people's instinct towards flexibility. How the new agriculture definition was allowed into legislation in the first place is a very good question though. Horse Racing Ireland's Brian Kavanagh has rejected suggestions the semi-state body should have headed this off at the pass long before the Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation got amendments through in 2015. He has described the current furore over the definition as perhaps an unintended consequence and indicated the Department of Agriculture are as baffled as he is. Nevertheless it's hard not to conclude when a department with no stake in racing is allowed proceed with a wording that has a major potential impact on racing that someone somewhere took their eye off the administrative and legislative ball. Clearly someone forgot Lenin's line that everything is connected to everything else! Anyone not exhausted by the Russell case, which hopefully will come to a conclusion at an Appeals Body hearing tomorrow, can click on Turf Club missed chance to respond to horse punch incident As for something more positive, Brian Kavanagh has also predicted that an Anti-Doping protocol between all sectors of the racing and bloodstock industries will be in place before the end of 2017. That will be almost two years after it was recommended in the Anti-Doping Task Force report issued after 2014's steroids controversy. Apparently all bodies involved - owners, trainers, breeders, Weatherbys, the Turf Club and the three sales companies, including Goresbridge - are all on board with a consultation document issued by HRI last month. All that's left is some practical details that have to be worked out such as co-registration and changes in declarations at various stages. Then it is hoped a system of traceability which will allow horses be tested throughout the course of their lives can be set up. Even if it's not before time movement on such a fundamental issue is still welcome. Questions remain however in terms of the nature of testing, how intelligence is employed and perhaps most of all in terms of enforcement: what meaningful penalty can be employed if, for instance, testers show up at a stud farm and are invited to, ahem, go away? And hey, by the way, the fourth 'Irish Champions Weekend' is on this week! The complexion of the five Group One races will become more clear tomorrow but it's interesting to note last week's odds of just 25-1 about Aidan O'Brien to win all of them. Churchill is odds-on, so are Winter and Order Of St George. Ballydoyle have an embarrassment of riches for the Moyglare so in National Stakes terms the prospect of Expert Eye travelling will be important. And hopefully on Saturday and Sunday a lot of people's hearts will be racing.
