It Doesn't Do What It Says On Tin The law may be an ass but racing's laws are more of a camel. Only a camel construction committee could come up with a system that allows you win even if you foul through interference or breaking the whip rules. Currently the focus is on another integrity contradiction which long ago bypassed any oasis of good sense and continues to lumber through the regulatory desert. Pacemakers go against both the word and spirit of the rules of racing. But no time soon will the practise stop. The topic is in focus again after Saturday's Eclipse when Padraig Beggy on the Coolmore pacemaker Taj Mahal exerted a major influence on the race. That the move he made across the field ultimately ruined the chances of his stable companion Cliffs Of Moher is an irony which only adds flavour to the debate. And that the move came in what was emerging as a slowly run race shows how it is far from one-dimensional. The Coolmore argument in such circumstances usually is that each horse is running its own race but if one likes to go forward, and if that ensures a fair and even gallop, well then that's fair to everyone. It can come across as almost an altruistic exercise. Except even at its most theoretically selfless such a function is no one's to assume. This isn't some motor-racing scenario where a pace-car suddenly disappears. By definition pacemakers are employed to suit a specific agenda. That agenda isn't invariably the frantic gallop of popular imagination either. Horses can be effectively employed to manipulate pace in other ways too, just so long as it suits particular overall ambitions. Either way it makes a nonsense of the rules prohibiting team tactics. It also makes a nonsense of each runner being seen to run on its own merits. These are black and white regulations and the authorities are contriving to flout them. How, for instance, is one supposed to square pacemakers with the new Rule 212 which says there's an overall obligation on persons who have any involvement with the running and riding of a horse to ensure it runs on its merits, and is also seen to a reasonable and informed member of the racing public, to have run on its merits. Does any reasonable and informed member of the racing public believe pacemakers are there to run on their own merits? Or that they're there for some aesthetic pursuit of athletic purity? That might be an occasional consequence but they're there primarily to suit the purposes of a specific set of connections. And that's an integrity minefield one would imagine officialdom would be keen to avoid stepping into. It's certainly one other major jurisdictions avoid. Australia did briefly toy with the idea of loosening the rules on pacemakers after some farcically run Melbourne Cups but quickly binned it. The esteemed chief Victorian steward Terry Bailey was quoted last year: "My concern is integrity issues with a perception of team riding and something that major stables would be able to utilise to the detriment of smaller stables." Officials in Australia and Hong Kong in particular recognise that their racing is intrinsically linked to how things look to the betting public. It produces a regulatory environment where what's written in black and white actually tends to get implemented. Here it's a much more arbitrary exercise where any amount of self-serving shinola can get pedalled rather than do what it says on the tin. But the reality probably is that there's always one law for the rich and another for the not so rich. It's not just in terms of pacemakers that other countries know their racing doesn't operate in a vacuum. They realise how the outside world perceives it matters. The lack of appreciation of this basic idea is all over the response to last week's renewed debate about the whip and its long term future in the sport. Having for some time banged the drum on the inevitability of the whip ultimately getting banned for any other purpose bar safety the response to last week's Racing Post piece was familiar. It's no surprise such an instinctively conservative sport is so reactionary to any idea of change, even change which is ultimately in its own self-interest. Normally such comment get dismissed as the irritating self-loathing of bolshie snowflakes. But this was the trade paper. So there was vehemence at 'OUR' sport being 'betrayed' by what it seems many racing people believe should be nothing more than its promotional cheerleader. Irish racing in particular probably does believe it can get away with such an attitude given it operates in a financial model that does effectively allow it exist in a vacuum. The irrelevance of public opinion here has been starkly illustrated recently. And there's always a smug sense of Ireland somehow having some hard-bitten superiority in matters equine compared to naive 'hawsey' lovers anywhere else. Even here though racing only occasionally breaks into the general public's consciousness. Otherwise most everyone toddles along happily without any consideration or interest in a horse game which can often seem like a very foreign country. If it crops up at all it's usually in stereotype, either in terms of bent bookies, furtive syringes or hooky jockeys, or through high profile figures like Michael O'Leary. Such ignorance doesn't really matter because no one really cares. It's part of the roguish racing cartoon. But here's the thing racing will eventually need to get its head around: whipping a dumb animal to make it go quicker looks ugly. End of. And public attitudes are only going to harden in relation to such optics because people have an inconvenient habit of deciding for themselves what they think looks cruel. Any amount of qualification about the whip being made out of duck feathers and chocolate won't matter. Neither will claims that racing is supposedly full of animal lovers. Or that certain mass-production agricultural practises are truly disgusting in comparison. They mostly happen out of sight and out of mind. Racing wants and needs to be seen. Which means it isn't in a vacuum and 'OUR' sport has to take account of how it looks. And whipping animals looks all wrong. It doesn't matter if there's an optical difference between Ryan Moore using it in a five furlong sprint and some hack amateur wielding it at the end of a three mile chase on heavy ground. Even if it's true that modern whips don't hurt horses it still sends out all the wrong signals. Get caught doing it to other animals and you could be charged. You can argue about how that's rooted in ignorance all you like. But it still won't look right. This is just one of a number of fundamental issues racing is going to have to get its head around in future. Those of us in thrall to the game have long since concluded that some of racing's uncomfortable realities aren't so uncomfortable in comparison to man's uneasy relationship with other elements of the animal kingdom. But that's just us. Nevertheless much of racing seems to think factoring in everyone else is unworthy pandering. And in the same breath it will wring itself in knots about declining levels of public interest. The sport craves attention but apparently only of the sort that suits it. But failure to take the initiative now invites some very uncomfortable attention indeed down the line. Because perception doesn't just matter - it's vital.
