Russell Panel Got It Wrong If the reaction to Davy Russell striking a mount with his fist was way too much then the official response in merely cautioning him for it is way too little. Even those who tried to put Russell's action in context acknowledge he shouldn't have done it. He himself seems to acknowledge that. When he appeared before Saturday's Referrals Committee hearing Russell must have readied himself for some sort of suspension. That he wasn't penalised at all testifies to the independence of the three-man panel. But they got it wrong. How they got it so wrong could wind up being the long-term legacy of this sorry case. This should have been straight-forward. They concluded Russell had breached Rule 272(i) in relation to conduct prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horse racing. They had a similar breach to work off in relation to Shane Foley getting seven days - cut to five days on appeal - for breaking the same rule when he struck an unruly mount with his whip before a race last month. Even if the panel had been living in an incubator for the previous week, and however you regard the degree of relative reputational damage committed by Foley and Russell, the reasonable course of action was to give Russell days. Not because it was politic but because it was the obvious and logical thing to do. In giving Russell a slap on the wrist, they didn't do much for the good reputation of horse racing and left Foley entitled to feel sorest of all about this. Rule 272 is deliberately vague and overarching and the argument is that the Foley scenario and the Russell scenario are different so must be interpreted differently. But they're not so different that it makes sense for one to produce a suspension and another not to. Plenty will argue that what Russell did damaged racing's reputation a lot more than Foley's offence although that raises an interesting quandary about what the racing public might find acceptable in their coercion. That such panels are seen to be as independent as possible is an important element in the regulatory process. But that doesn't hide the reality that they're often well-meaning laymen doing their best to interpret a nuanced rulebook which often permit penalties to be left to their own discretion. Many will argue that's a good thing. But this Russell case illustrates it can lead to worrying inconsistency. With the British Horseracing Authority continuing to examine the merits of full time racecourse stewards it is probably only a matter of time before stewarding here become professional too. In such a set up the independence of an appeals structure is important and the merits of amateur impartiality considerable. But it's surely not contradictory that such panels be able to officially call on professional expertise when negotiating their way through thornier elements of the rulebook. It makes no sense in the light of the penalty Shane Foley received that Davy Russell should escape a ban. Instead it makes the procedure look haphazard and imprecise. The next time Rule 272 comes into the spotlight it's a sure thing the issue of precedence and inconsistency will accompany it. One final point in relation to this matter is my own tuppence worth last week. The problem with trying to adopt a wry tone is it can tip over into flippancy. In arguing for Russell's error of judgement to be put in context, I outlined a personal experience and regrettably got the tone wrong. It wound up veering too close to the sort of posturing I've always hated, in the process inadvertently deflecting from the vital debate about animal welfare, the last thing intended. On to a happier subject and the upcoming 'Irish Champions Weekend' which for once appears to be shaping up in a way that won't feel lopsided. For the first three years of the event it was the Curragh leg's lot to have a certain anti-climactic feel to it since Leopardstown had the undoubted feature of the whole event on the first day. That this is counter-intuitive to any sense of momentum or narrative didn't seem to bother anyone. But with opposition to Churchill uncertain for the Champion Stakes this year, and Winter dominating the Matron, there is a sense, from a racing point of view at least, that the Curragh could more than hold its own this year. A lot will depend on whether or not Big Orange travels for the Irish Leger and a possible repeat of his epic Ascot Gold Cup clash with Order Of St George. If he does, anticipation of another tussle - this time with a Dettori V Moore twist thrown in - will be considerable. Should the hugely exciting Expert Eye travel make the journey from England too then the National Stakes will shape as a race to savour. And there are enough quality fillies in Ballydoyle alone to the Moyglare enthralling. Should it occur of course the old and by now futile debate about whether or not the whole thing would be better served by staging it at Leopardstown is likely to get re-aired. And since the entire 'Champions Weekend' concept is about showcasing and promotion, the idea it should be hosted in front of a restricted crowd on a building site really is counter-intuitive. Still there will be an extra thousand accommodated on the infield this time. There are even plans for a Fossetts Circus Big Top to be erected as part of an overall 'Family Fun' theme. It's no bad idea in itself and the Curragh authorities believe such an infield entertainment area could become a regular feature of racing there. Finally the anoraks among us who examine stewards enquiry reports wade through almost daily briefs about trainers being fined for not having horse's vaccines in order on their passports. The fine is €350 each time as long as it comes with a written assurance everything is in order. Such a penalty doesn't seem to stem the flow however. A colleague informs that in the trotting game if vaccinations aren't in order on the passport the horse is withdrawn. If that seems a stiff penalty, first-time round at least, some of racing's repeat offenders, who don't seem to find the prospect of paying €350 a time much of a deterrent, might count themselves lucky.
