Recently, my colleague Ainsley 'Jimmy' Walters has been on the subject of declarable equipment to be carried by starters in a race, especially as it relates to the decision to remove the tongue-tie from the list of items by the regulators.

The list of declarable equipment and items worldwide include type of shoes to be worn depending on the racing surface, blinkers, visors, cheek-pieces, figure of eight, tongue-ties and the use, or otherwise, of whips and or spurs as well as race day medication in jurisdictions where it is allowable.

There is incontrovertible and well-documented evidence that the use, or otherwise, of these items can affect the performance of a horse positively or negatively and has been manipulated depending on which result the connections are looking for on any given day.

Horseracing facilitates legal gaming and as a consequence indulgence in corrupt practices is inevitable and therefore a permanent undesirable feature.

In the history of organised horseracing there could never at anytime be a presumption that all starters are trying to win, no matter how high the stakes.

vigilant and uncompromising

Regulatory agencies, such as our own Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC), have to be vigilant and uncompromising not only dealing effectively with corrupt practices when it occurs, but also in making it as difficult as possible for the unscrupulous to succeed.

Removing discretion from trainers as far as the declaration of equipment is concerned has certainly been a useful measure in aiding the protection of the integrity of the sport.

An In & Out Running Committee to monitor perfor-mance is no longer considered a necessity in a scenario where there is clear need for it as frequent form reversals play havoc with the confidence of the bettors.

Organised horseracing is a commercial venture entirely dependent on sales turnover for its viability. Therefore any and everything must be done to enhance the confidence of the bettors.

The regulatory agencies and the promoters have a huge responsibility in this regard, but at times one has to wonder how seriously some aspects of this is dealt with.

For example, elsewhere in the world there is a proactive approach to the dissemination of information. In this industry it is information that drives betting!

Owners and trainers in many jurisdictions are obligated to give information on the condition of horses with veterinary evaluation reports made public.

In England, trainers are allowed to withdraw if changes in the weather affect the underfoot conditions which will have a negative impact on the performance of any particular horse.

Earlier this year, I made reference in this column to a scenario where a horse returned from a two-year absence and won immediately. Despite its ability, most punters neglected to back it on the assumption this was enforced absence due to lameness.

It was later discovered that the mare had no serious defects. The previous owner had died without leaving a will rendering it ineligible to race whilst the administration of his estate was taking place.

In North America horses returning from lay-offs of certain stipulated periods must be engaged in timed public exercises before being allowed to resume competitive racing, but there is no such requirement in Jamaica.

This and any other type of information should be made public as a matter of policy.

I think it should be the responsibility of the promoting company to insist that the regulators ensure that the Racing Rules remain dynamic and respond to the need for the constant enhancement of confidence in the integrity of the racing product.

What prevails here is essentially tantamount to taking the punters for granted.