Axeing amateur stewards would be a terrible error

In an attempt to safeguard racing from modern-day threats to its integrity, the British Horseracing Authority is contemplating a radical shake-up of the manner in which the rules of horse racing are enforced on a day-to-day basis.

There is now an acceptance that if racing is to prosper, people who buy horses or bet on them must have total confidence that the sport is an extremely well regulated, fair and honest sport.

In short, the likelihood is that there are going to be significant changes introduced, not only to the structure of race-day stewarding, but the composition of the personnel that currently carries it out.

What has become apparent is that currently there is not one person who is 100 per cent accountable for all events which occur on racecourses, as far as the actual races are concerned. That should not be confused with the role of the racecourses, or the promoters, who are there to carry out their own commercial functions.

So if operational mistakes happen – which can be unusual and unexpected – or poor decisions are made, there is currently no one individual who has to step up to the plate and take responsibility.

There are 98 honorary [amateur] stewards across all racecourses, who get one or two days of training a year. They are advised and led by 15 stipendiary [professional] stewards.

While it is currently up to the honorary stewards to enforce the rules of racing, they are increasingly led by the professionals, who should have a more thorough grasp of the rules and regulations. 

Some, however, would argue that situation gives the professionals influence without accountability.

Given that one of the main aims of this review is to maximise consistency, the concept of ‘head office’ stewards proactively monitoring decisions made on the 60 different racecourses in real time will be up for consideration. It is a proposition that has considerable merit and one that modern communication systems have made much more practical.

How better to ensure that misdemeanours such as excessive use of the whip or interference are dealt with in a uniform and fair manner week in, week out?

But if one were to impose ‘super stewards’ overviewing the work of ‘race day’ stewards, who would be the ultimate boss? Who should have total authority and responsibility for every decision that is made? In other words, what would the chain of command be?

So the most challenging part of this review will be deciding whether a professional or an honorary amateur should be given ultimate responsibility for the events unfolding at a race meeting, be they at the track or in an operations room in High Holborn.

Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. If the experience of other countries is anything to go by, professional stewards are prone to having their likes and dislikes among the ranks of trainers and jockeys. And that is not a healthy situation, when the professional stewards can hound their prey across every racecourse. They can, however, be highly trained and up to the minute as far as understanding modern-day threats to integrity.

Honorary amateur stewards bring significant experience of racing with them, are very cost-effective and, in theory, should not be in a position to make their individual likes and dislikes a problem.

But one would imagine that they are of variable quality given that some of them are able to dedicate many more days to the sport than others.

One possible outcome of the review might be that it identifies a group of honorary stewards, who could devote enough time to be more extensively trained and, with the support of an operational team in London, be prepared to be the individuals who carry the can on race day. 

The alternative is to promote stipendiary stewards to that role – and you can see the logic of that – but my gut reaction is that it would be the wrong way to go.

The ultimate aim of this review will be to raise the game of racing’s ‘referees’ in the face of more complex corrupting forces without throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

Dispensing with the services of the 98 honorary stewards would be a terrible mistake and a waste of knowledge. But that is not to say the structure within which they work couldn’t be modernised and improved.