Sooner Rather Than Later

British racing is taking its first steps towards replacing amateur stewards with professional panels. Racing is too big for its regulation to be seen left in the hands of well-meaning volunteers. It's inevitable here too. The perception of a state-subsidised industry aspiring towards €2 billion in value being policed by well-intentioned amateurs regulating their own isn't sustainable. Yet it still appears to be very much a case of later rather than sooner when it comes to acknowledging this.

Not that professionalism is any panacea of perfect impartiality. That's a myth and one not confined to racing's little paddock. When pillars of society like the judiciary and police are so political any idea the racing regulation of such a small country can somehow be magically incubated from accusations of compromise is juvenile.

There's no point sticking a steward's hat on a virtuous pea-green innocent if they don't know what they're looking at. And since knowing what to look at requires experience at racing's coalface it means motivation can always be queried if one wants to regardless of whether people are paid to do the job or not.

But there's a major difference in terms of the message professionalism sends out about the seriousness with which regulation is viewed. There is also a difference in accountability, not to mention the potential impact on the interpretation and implementation of a rule book still too prone to subjective interpretation. It has however to be part of overall change.

Just appointing professional panels and saying 'good luck now' is not on. Compared to other major racing jurisdictions, regulation here is run on a relative shoestring. For instance the idea of stipendiary stewards spending much of their time on secretarial duty is ridiculous. Yet Horse Racing Ireland's response to resource allocation is that they cough up all they're asked for.

Regardless of attention-grabbing headlines there's little wrong with a legislative set-up which at least aspires to keeping regulation and promotion separate. Practise on the ground might differ but the theory is not irrelevant, no matter what some of the Turf Club's own membership argue. And it's surely in the interests of the Turf Club as an institution to take the initiative much more than it is.

Appointing professional stewards panels sooner rather than later is one such step. That requires resources and making the case for such resources, not arguing that amateur stewards are a cost-saving exercise. Racing has public money. There's every reason some of it should be diverted to the public's interests. In fact the question could be why it isn't already.

Neither does professionalism threaten the expertise that voluntary stewards like the new Chief Justice, Frank Clarke, can bring. Such expertise can still be utilised constructively at appeals level without having to be employed at the day to day coalface, a practise with a questionable outlook anyway considering the overall age profile involved.

The idea of perfect impartiality is naive but professionalism comes with a presumption of standards that need to be set and are seen to be set. Acknowledging that in relation to stewards panels, and moving on it, is surely in the Turf Club's own long-term interests.

How problematic it is to tread a course through the rulebook was illustrated in last week's failure to even contest the Over The Seas appeal into the void race at Killarney which now has a winner again.

Considering the rule definitively states the starter has the final say on such matters the Turf Club had little option but to wave the white flag in terms of the technical basis on which the Killarney race was declared void.

It's worth looking at the rule book sometime though, how extensive it is, with clauses and sub-clauses galore, and then wonder how with time pressure constraints there aren't more such errors from officials required to keep any number of administrative and supervisory balls in the air at any one time.

It was embarrassing for the Turf Club but also an example of how even a minor diversion of resources from prizemoney could make a major impact on its effective and proper distribution.

Ahead of Galway's 'Gathering of the Tribes' it is some of racing's employment practises that have been making headlines.

Michael O'Leary was once quoted as replying "fear" when quizzed about his strategy for employee motivation. The Ryanair boss might have been being flippant - and he does carry off such statements with aplomb - but it's hardly an original idea. The management consultancy industry practically exists on a message of supposed creative tension. That it can turn into plain old self-defeating tension doesn't seem to have put any stop to its gallop.

I don't know if Bryan Cooper was tense during his near three and a half year tenure as O'Leary's No.1 jockey but there were times when he rode like it. Considering he was just 21 when getting the job it would be as remarkable if that wasn't the case sometimes. And in such circumstances it's rare for fear to emerge as any kind of plus.

Cooper has sometimes ridden like a jockey who needs to just relax and let it happen. Everyone in racing knows it's usually best not force it. But knowing that and managing it are very different things. Experience and maturity usually helps but even then it can prove maddeningly elusive.

By definition the Gigginstown job is one of the most pressurised in the game. It's hard not to conclude Cooper simply got it too soon. Hopefully Galway can prove a springboard for a major talent with hard lessons now under his belt and more than enough time to learn from them.

As for Ballydoyle Racing's Labour Court appeal against a Workplace Relations Commission notice demanding it comply with laws regulating working hours, it looks another symptom of racing's habit of defining itself through whatever department or guideline suits it best at any particular time.

And finally, it's noticeable how more racing clubs are appearing on the scene. They provide what might be termed an 'ownership experience' and they're promoted by Horse Racing Ireland's ownership department.

HRI is currently drawing up a code of conduct as to how clubs and syndicates should work. From what one can gather it seems to feel its role mainly consists of making sure that when clubs are formed, or new members join, all the information and conditions specific to that club or syndicate, is made available to them.

It seems pretty light-touch considering you don't need to be alarmist to envisage potential headaches, such as disputes over prizemoney distribution or the sale of a particularly valuable animal, which would require strict and tightly defined guidelines to sort out. Transparency is well and good but it hardly leaves you off the administrative hook.