The capacity of Irish racing’s regulator to jump from one reputational minefield into another can sometimes look as close to a sure thing as the sport is able to serve up.
It’s like the old gag about never making the same mistake twice but rather five or six times just to be sure.
Yet again, the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board looks to have forgotten that it gets public funding to carry out its integrity functions. This year that comes to a hefty €15.9 million.
It’s State support that demands words like accountability and transparency amount to more than mission statement jargon.
The Turf Club has a near 250-year history as a private body so, despite the label change to the IHRB, it is perhaps inevitable a legacy of reticence continues to linger when it comes to housekeeping.
But that simply doesn’t cut it when in receipt of so much public money, and particularly so since the IHRB has been firefighting on the credibility front for much of the last decade.
A body often pigeonholed as a closed shop that is unmoved by public opinion can’t afford to continually live down to the stereotype.
It beggars belief then how the IHRB still doesn’t seem to have twigged how in the face of widespread scepticism they not only need to be on top of their game but be seen to be on top of it.
[ Trickle down economics in Racing not working for the majorityOpens in new window ]
And yet that hush-hush instinct appears to still exist based on the fallout of grim welfare allegations involving former trainer Homer Scott.
A Sunday Independent report outlined upsetting first-hand accounts of mistreatment of animals at Scott’s Co Kildare premises and how Department of Agriculture officials twice inspected it last year.
Last June the IHRB reportedly carried out its own inspection. Shortly afterwards Scott surrendered his licence. And that, from what can be gathered, appeared to be that: no referral, no examination of its own, not even a mention of the matter on the IHRB website.
The Department of Agriculture’s investigation is ongoing and is of primary importance to those horrified by some of the allegations outlined, a point quickly made by the IHRB once details emerged. It also argues that getting Scott’s licence so quickly was a procedural result.
Nevertheless, how any organisation under reputational bombardment for so long can fail to appreciate the importance of perception in all this is baffling.
So too is the IHRB doubling down by refusing to elaborate on why it opted for this course of action. It chose to indulge in doublespeak by referring to particular circumstances that warranted a specific approach and, inevitably, all sorts of speculation have rushed into the information vacuum.
Maybe there are valid reasons for not holding a referral on the matter and publishing the outcome, perhaps some sensitivities that can’t be made public. But in terms of strategic self-preservation alone, it’s hard to believe no one in the IHRB thought to how this might look.
Accurate or not, it’s far too easy for a sceptical public to consider this in terms of an individual under pressure handing in their licence to make at least some problems go away, and the regulator playing ball presumably to try and keep as much of a lid on things as possible.
On top of that, for the IHRB to then try and provide reassurance by basically saying “trust us, we’ve got this,” smacks of high-handedness more in keeping with bowler-hatted days of yore. It’s simply a non-runner now.
This latest self-inflicted reputational injury deflects once again from what is actually a transformed regulatory landscape. The IHRB now calls on powers and resources that would have seemed unimaginable a decade ago.
But public confidence is way too shaky to try and get away with conducting its business like this, particularly in relation to such an emotive subject as animal welfare.
It inevitably invites queries as to what else might similarly have been kept in-house over the years: what else might have occurred that went away simply by a licence not being renewed or handed in?
It’s some outcome when Stephen Mahon, who had his own licence suspended for 3½ years after high-profile breaches of animal welfare regulations, can even be viewed by some as wronged on the back of the latitude seemingly shown to Scott.
This case is primarily a Department of Agriculture operation, but thoroughbred welfare is racing’s issue.
In return for State money, the public is entitled to confidence in the regulatory authorities doing the job properly and openly. Even the appearance of cosy behind-the-scenes deals are a relic of the past the IHRB can’t afford to indulge in.
Privately many in the IHRB feel aggrieved at not getting enough credit for the widespread changes implemented over the last few years. The argument is that it is a very different organisation now. But it’s hard to get kudos when it still seems so clumsy.
SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND
Well-backed at Naas last month, ZANNDABAD can recoup losses in the first at Gowran (1.42) on Saturday. A bad mistake at the third last ruined his chance then but he could progress enough to overcome the Naas runner-up Mighty Me Missouri and the French winner Media Naranja.
Fakir D’oudairies goes for back-to-back wins in the Ascot Chase (3.35) on Saturday but on watered ground PIC D’ORHY could be hard to peg back if getting loose at the front under Harry Cobden.
