NEWCASTLE Racecourse had to ride a storm of criticism in its bid to bring all-weather racing to the north of England, and while its opening meeting on Tuesday was greeted by largely positive reviews from jockeys and trainers, there was one aspect of the day which went awry.

It was a very important one, especially in the context of racing on artificial surfaces, and that came in the dubious nature of race distances. As was pointed out by The Irish Field columnist Simon Rowlands at the time, the race distances didn’t seem to measure up to the markings at the track, or indeed to the finishing times recorded.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must stress again how important robust betting is for horse racing to flourish, and betting cannot be genuinely robust when basic racing information is incorrect.

The issue of odd distances was raised with Newcastle’s Clerk of The Course James Armstrong, who stated after the event that the starts were all in the correct position, but siting of furlong markers suggest that either the markers or the starts on the straight track were positioned incorrectly, while the time for the race advertised as 7 furlong 69 yards was significantly faster per furlong than others on the card, suggesting that the stalls were indeed closer to the seven furlong post than advertised, as visual interpretation also suggested.

As a result of these issues being raised, Arena Racing Company’s director of external affairs Susannah Gill stated that the track was relying on historic information, but that distances would be remeasured by MK Surveys, the firm used to provide the same service for the jumping tracks on the UK mainland when it was revealed that many of the official distances in National Hunt races were wrong by significant margins. It’s good news that the next Newcastle meeting will take place after the opportunity has been taken to correct errors found on day one, but it’s absolutely startling that racecourses are still relying on information provided a quarter of a century ago.

The last full-scale survey of Britain’s flat courses took place in 1991, and despite calls for all courses to be re-evaluated in light of inaccuracies in the winter game, the Racecourse Association (RCA) seem content to leave well enough alone. It’s left to lone wolves like Rowlands to point out the stupidity of such attitudes, and hope that something eventually gets done.

In fairness to ARC, both Gill and current chief executive Martin Cruddace have come to their roles via Betfair, and know how important accurate data is in driving betting revenue, and will be keen to correct any errors which may have been shown up at the track’s unveiling, but the fact that they needed agencies outside their own organisation to point out the inconsistency is still a concern, and can hardly be a ringing endorsement for the status quo at more, traditionally run venues.

It seems the first port of call within the industry is to bat off any criticism whether or not it has foundation, even though embracing such feedback would be more beneficial in both the short and long term.

BHA BLUNDERS

That brings us nicely to the revelation that the BHA were warned by no less than their own former head of communications that using Matthew Lohn on disciplinary panels was an accident waiting to happen.

Paul Struthers, now heading up the Professional Jockeys’ Association (PJA) could be expected to know what he was talking about when he told his old bosses that having a solicitor who counted the BHA among his clients acting in an independent role would lead to trouble.

Sadly, his warning fell on deaf ears, with the result that convictions against Jim Best and Paul Gilligan have been quashed after complaints that the disciplinary panel, headed by Lohn, could not be deemed truly independent.

It seems blindingly obvious that using Lohn was a misjudgement, for all he’s almost certainly done a sterling job, and providing loopholes for the likes of Best to utilise is a huge embarrassment. It remains likely that new inquiries will take place, and there is no obvious reason why the same results will not be forthcoming, but the rules and processes of the sport’s governing body should be simple and beyond reproach.

It’s ironic that one of the BHA jobs which Lohn turned down as an obvious conflict of interest was the task of reframing the BHA’s official rules, which have become a mess, as I have previously mentioned in this column.

That job is long overdue, and given Mr Lohn will no longer be needed for disciplinary duties, perhaps he should reconsider his options in regard to his BHA portfolio.

A fresh start for both him and the mangled rulebook would be most welcome.