Is racing bent?

YES...says anti-racing campaigner Alan Robertshaw of York Animal Aid.

NO...says William Derby, chief executive and clerk of the course at York Racecourse.

First Mr. Robertshaw's argument:

YES, I CERTAINLY do think that racing is bent. There is so much money involved, and so many opportunities for fixing races, that it is really hardly surprising.

Whether or not Kieron Fallon and Sean Fox were guilty of race fixing, I couldn't say. They both deny the allegations. But the publicity given to these cases has highlighted what is a real problem for racing. It is something many of us have suspected for a long time, and I think punters are right to be concerned.

I have an axe to grind, of course. As a campaigner for animal rights, my view is that there should not be any hurdle racing at all. It is a form of cruelty to horses.

If horses were meant to jump over high fences, they would be leaping out of fields left, right and centre.

There are so many horses killed in the Grand National and other hurdle races that I would like to see the whole thing stopped. There are plenty of other ways that people can enjoy a bet without inflicting suffering on animals - by betting on football matches, for example, or the Olympic Games.

That said, I understand that many people get great enjoyment out of betting on the horses, and I think it is clear that sometimes punters are just not getting a fair deal.

One of the problems, as I understand it, is the issue of using the betting exchanges to bet on horses losing rather than winning. There are so many ways of losing a race, and if someone has backed a horse to lose, in order to 'throw' that race you only have to 'fix' one horse.

If you are trying to fix it for a horse to win a race, by contrast, you would really have to fix all the other horses in the race. So once you allow people to start backing a horse to lose, you open the door to all these kinds of problems.

The Jockey Club clearly needs to put racing's house in order if it is to restore confidence. Perhaps one thing it should be doing is outlawing this practice of betting on a horse to lose. I can't in any way see how that would affect a punter's ability to enjoy a day at the races.

After all, they would still be able to bet on horses to win - which is really what racing should be all about, surely, celebrating the power and grace of these beautiful animals rather than hoping they are going to fall?

There is so much more skill in trying to pick a winner, too, I would have thought; in looking at the form books, assessing the conditions and so on. Why do they need to let people back a horse to lose?

That is what I would be doing if I was the Jockey Club. As an animal rights campaigner, however, I wouldn't object if they banned hurdle racing at least for good.

And Mr Derby's argument:

IN my role as clerk of the course at York I have never had reason to doubt the integrity of races run on Knavesmire.

Is racing a victim of crooks? Yes, it could be, as are other major sports where gambling occurs.

Approximately 80,000 horses compete in races on 59 different courses every year, these contests will generate around £8 billion in bets, so with this sort of incentive and opportunity, a criminal minority will always be tempted to seek advantage.

As a sport, racing recognises the duty that it has to its competitors; the owners, trainers, stable staff and jockeys who invest their cash, time, energies and dreams in pursuit of victory.

On a raceday, I'm in a position to witness the high and lows of sporting endeavour and would defy anyone to doubt the commitment of these participants.

As an industry, racing accepts that integrity is a crucial issue, and takes its duty to the growing number of racegoers, all six million of them last year, and its 100,000 employees very seriously. Their enjoyment and their livelihoods are founded on a commitment to police the sport and attempt to keep it clean.

In practice every race is run under the scrutiny of five experienced stewards and the watchful eye of at least four television cameras. Add in the vigilance of rival owners, trainers and, of course, punters and you can appreciate why jockeys feel more under the microscope than a profligate centre forward.

A regime of random post race dope testing further demonstrates the investment in integrity.

In racing the final result is announced after the chance for due reflection by the stewards, not in the heat of the sporting arena.

Not content with vigilance during a race, the Jockey Club has a security department made up of 27 full-time and 38 part-time employees directed by a former senior police officer. Their activities include investigations, intelligence gathering, surveillance, and inspections of training yards, as well as monitoring patterns in the betting market.

Much of the comment in the past week has overlooked the fact that the Jockey Club had registered an integrity interest before the races concerned were run; other sports are left to play catch up after an event.

Opinions have varied regarding the role of the betting exchange in the current accusations. For me, any new service, especially one based on an advance in technology, is bound to present challenges. The Jockey Club is actively working with the betting exchange providers to harness the security audit potential of its product while respecting the rights of its customers.

It is not an easy task but it is not being shirked.

For the individuals at the centre of the current storm the results of the investigations will determine whether they have any career left in racing.

Because they remain innocent until proven otherwise it is only proper that their cases are considered calmly and fairly. Anyone who follows sport will accept that even champions can have bad days. But rest assured, anyone found guilty of wrongdoing and so damaging the game I love will not be welcome at York.

Updated: 10:45 Thursday, March 11, 2004