An inquiry is needed into threat to old-style stewards

The BHA plan to make racing more professional would waste years of experience and cost more, writes Marcus Armytage

Many have grown up on the turf and many have vast experience of the job

There is a story, recalled by John Francome from his time as a jump jockey, when he and Steve Smith-eccles were exiting the stewards’ room after an inquiry at which Francome had been awarded the race at the expense of his mucker.

“He must be f-----blind,” said Smith-eccles referring to the chairman of the stewards’ panel in a stage whisper.

“What did you say?” responded the chairman.

“And f------ deaf, too,” added Smith-eccles equally audibly as he continued on his way.

For as long as racing has had rules, they have, on race days, been adjudicated upon by a panel of “honorary” stewards; essentially, unpaid people from the locality. For years their decisions did, indeed, lack consistency, once fortnightly they were controversial enough to make headlines and they were often the butt of racing’s in-jokes.

But the British Horseracing Authority came along and sharpened the whole process up. There are now fewer of them – typically two per meeting chosen from a core of 97 – and they are “guided” by a professional stipendiary steward (stype) who knows the rule book inside out.

Today’s stewards, the vast majority who have played some part in racing as owners, breeders, trainers or jockeys, still do it for the love of racing – for free.

They are well trained by the BHA – they do 15 days’ training before they begin their probation – they do it with diligence and pride, many have grown up on the turf and many have vast experience of the job.

As there are two stewards to one stype, they can outvote him at an inquiry if the situation warrants it. They can also overrule a stype if, as retired trainer Barry Hills so eloquently describes bias, “he has a pencil mark against certain names”. In short, the system works. But this summer, driven by its chief regulatory officer, Jamie Stier, an Australian brought up in an Aussie system of professional stewarding, the BHA said goodbye and thank you for your efforts to its honorary stewards.

Acting on comments, it said, from “stakeholders”, it announced it was time to move on to a professional system. But the BHA, which ironically has just announced that it is bringing in the equivalent of honorary stewards at a higher disciplinary panel level to give it an air of independence, has stepped back from its fait

accompli stance. Instead, it has just commenced an eightweek consultation with stakeholders, citing an “integrity threat assessment which highlighted increasingly complicated and sophisticated risks to the fair running of racing” as a reason.

It will find, however, that the various associations of owners, trainers and jockeys do not want a fix for a system which is not broken. The jockeys point out that if it is all about greater accountability in the decision-making then the new professional stypes must be as punishable as a jockey or trainer if they get it wrong.

And if the BHA thinks it is going to replace all that experience with a bunch of underpaid graduates with 10 minutes’ training then good luck to them.

Then, and this must be the Yorkshire in me, there is also the cost of a new system. The BHA reckons an extra 16 professional stewards costing £400,000 will be able to cover the 1,500 race meetings a year.

As Hills says, it will cost nearer £2 million because the BHA will need 30 people and it will have to pay them more than buttons.

A new system would be no more immune to the sophisticated integrity risk than the old and it cannot possibly be as cost effective.