Tone Deaf With a fortnight to Cheltenham every twist and niggle becomes an issue. A couple of days on the easy list can be a major festival blow for any horse. Then there's final running plans, who rides what, what's blooming in their work. It all makes how information is disseminated to the betting public an even more pressing topic. So it will be interesting to see how much relevant news will be put into the public domain in the next couple of weeks courtesy of bookmakers and betting organisations. It's very easy to get all conspiracy theory about ever burgeoning links between these firms and leading racing figures. The usual reality for jockeys and trainers is that lending one's name to a sponsorship blog is simply an exercise in picking up easy money. A snatched minute on the phone is ghosted into banal clichés about hoping for the best. The sponsor gets a little reflected stardust in return as well as increased traffic from those gullible enough to swallow such platitudes. But just because these things are generally harmless doesn't mean they can't be harmful. On the run up to this year's festival it is noticeable how many more leading trainers and jockeys have got deals with bookmakers. So it's hardly surprising some of them might choose to live up to their side of the commercial bargain by opting to reveal newsworthy snippets through those firms. And the argument can be made that as long as information is put out there it doesn't matter how. The information world now is after all a very different beast to even a decade ago. Complaints from mainstream journalists about not having the news party to themselves can sound hollow. Except this isn't about competition. It's about perception and how racing leaves itself open to suspicion when information emerges through such cosy relationships. The most glaring example of how problematic they can be came with the Altior controversy and how Nicky Henderson chose to reveal a wind issue with the horse through a betting firm blog. Henderson got very sore and believed his integrity was being impugned. It wasn't. The problem was how it emerged was wide open to the perception of a bookmaker having inside information. Bookmakers get very hot indeed on the subject of inside information when it works against them. The age-old reality that those closest to the horse know first what's happening with that horse, and are liable to share that information with others, can get betting firms very indignant indeed. But if information is released through a commercial relationship they have with a trainer or jockey they are at the very least open to a perception of being in possession of inside information before opting to release it. The reality is usually much more mundane than fevered imaginations would have you believe. But perception matters. Cheltenham is the sport's greatest shop window, the ultimate championship, and the biggest event - bar the Aintree National -in betting turnover. It's when racing's pledge to insure a level playing field in the battle between punter and layer is put under the hottest spotlight. Anyone looking for perfection in this area will look forever. In fact for many it's the in the hint sulphur about the battle that is one of its attractions. After all another age-old reality is that the exchange of information on horses has been going on as long as racing. But the sport leaves itself wide open to suspicion when the betting public can see trainers and jockeys in commercial bed with bookmakers and especially so when news starts to be sourced via that link-up. The old riposte is that there's no difference between getting news out there through a bookmaker's twitter account or by informing a media organisation. In fact the upside for some professionals is that they can get a few quid out of it rather than having to deal with parasitic media types. Except there is a difference. It's a similar difference to putting something out for public consumption on your own twitter account as distinct from a sponsored one. It's about tone. And it's easy to imagine punters looking at these cosy relationships and concluding that the sport is very happy indeed to turn a deaf ear to it. Statistics released by the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board for 2017 contained stark evidence of what was widely known anyway in relation to the declining numbers of those able to make a living from training racehorses. The total number of trainers licenses, both full and restricted, fell from 805 to 578 in the decade up to 2017. The numbers holding National Hunt licenses in particular is on the slide. Inevitably the subject of bad debt has arisen in examination of these figures and various propositions about payment mechanisms have been mentioned as possible solutions. The topic of minimum training fees has also got an airing as a potential method of helping trainers run viable businesses. The Trainers Association believes a lot of its members supplement owners in order to have horses in training or charge commercially unrealistic rates in order to attract and then keep clients. So the idea of a minimum rate across the board among trainers has been mentioned. The practical implementation of such an scheme might be tricky but the theory seems perfectly sound. It's a rare owner who is prepared to pay over the odds in order to provide their trainer with a better standard of living. So it's no surprise to anyone if some trainers undercut others. That's the market after all and the trainers body is no one's idea of a spiritual home for pinko, lefty Trots. But there's a sense out there that trainers are waiting for others to implement and organise these ideas. And that's not on. Complaining about the difficulty of making the training game pay is all well and good but it's trainers who'll have to change that themselves. If that requires organising a minimum rate system, that means doing it themselves, and making sure no one steps out of line. Such a communal policy might offend a lot of free-market instincts but if trainers can't be moved to take steps to help themselves it's hard to see why anyone else should be bothered. Finally perhaps the most startling stat' in the IHRB report was that 35 per cent of appeals to the Referrals Committee were successful or partially successful in 2017. That's a significant drop from previous years and much of it is to do with the reworded Rule 212 'running and riding regulations' introduced just over a year ago. Usually when people talk about culture change they're talking for the sake of talking. But this is actual culture change. And it shows what can happen when serious intent is applied to a serious problem. So it if can happen with one area, what might be achieved in other areas when similar intent is applied.
