Rules of Racing need to acknowledge the use of pacemakers

The use of pacemakers in horse racing has been hitting the headlines in recent weeks.

First we had Qirat's 150/1 shock in the Sussex Stakes at Goodwood when the favourite's pacemaker lasted home for a most unlikely victory. Then we saw Birr Castle almost do the same for different connections at York last Wednesday in another Group One contest.

All the top outfits deploy pacemakers from time to time in an attempt to provide an even and/or strong pace for their chief contender, but under the Rules of Racing they are not strictly allowed to do so.

Current Racing Rules Conflict with Pacemaker Use

Under the Rules in Ireland it states: "there is an overall obligation on all persons who have any involvement with the running and riding of a Horse in a Race to ensure that the Horse concerned runs on its merits and is also seen, to a reasonable and informed member of the racing public, to have been run on its merits."

In the UK the Rules state that a Jockey: "must be seen to ask their horse for timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible position; and take all other reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible position."

While a Trainer "is responsible for ensuring that a Jockey who rides a horse trained by them in a Race is given instructions that shall allow the Jockey to ensure that the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible position."

A pacemaker by definition is not given a full opportunity of obtaining its best possible position, but the authorities in both jurisdictions invariably turn a blind eye.

Article highlights:

• Pacemaker use in racing contradicts current rules requiring horses to run on their merits
• There's a need for clear declarations of which horses will serve as pacemakers
• Authorities should amend rules to officially acknowledge and regulate pacemaking
• The distinction between legitimate pacemaking and illegal team tactics needs clarification

Overall I have no real issue with this practice of pacemaking when it is clear and obvious, but that is not always the case. Sometimes there is the assumption that one or more runners in a race will be used as pacemakers, but in reality that doesn't happen and this should be clarified beforehand.

This year's Irish Derby was a case in point. Ballydoyle ran five horses in the race, including the odds-on favourite Lambourn, where it would have been reasonable to presume that one or more of the other four Ballydolye horses would be deployed as a pacemaker, but none were.

Needed: Clear Rules for Pacemakers

It would be a positive step if the authorities clarified the position on pacemakers and included an amendment to the rules to cater for their use. Stipulating exactly what constitutes the role.

If connections were obligated to declare in advance if any horse under their care is to be used as a pacemaker, it would clear up any ambiguity.

Knowing for definite that a horse's chance is being sacrificed for that of a stablemate would add a degree of certainty to a race, which can only be positive for the sport, particularly as pacemakers are most commonly used in the highest profile Flat races.

Pacemaking vs. Team Tactics

While we are discussing pacemakers, it is worth differentiating between their use and the more sinister, but similar use of team tactics.

Team tactics is where one or more horses representing one set of connections are used to gain an advantage for their preferred candidate, by either creating an artificial gap or obstructing competitors. This should be completely outlawed as it goes against the spirit of the sport and is dangerous to boot.

Unfortunately, some pacemakers end up getting involved in team tactics as the field closes in on them in the latter stages of the race.

How the pacemaker gets out of the way of the closing pack can cause controversy as we saw recently in the Royal Whip Stakes at the Curragh. The stewards enquired into the actions of the 300/1 runner-up, "where it appeared that Tangapour drifted away from the rail and as a consequence afforded Zahrann (more fancied stablemate) a clear path." On this occasion the raceday stewards were satisfied that no further action was required.

IHRB Annual Report

Changing the subject, last month the IHRB published their 2024 Annual Report which included data and statistics relating to most aspects of their business.

The Veterinary section of the report was a little scant on detail, particularly when it came to the welfare of horses which now appears to be a strong focus of the organisation.

There was paragraph after paragraph telling us about all the great work the IHRB veterinary team is doing in the field of horse welfare and all the different seminars and talks they attended and organised during the year, both in Ireland and abroad, on this subject.

They also included information on the use of a new AI tool to record and analyse the gait of horses with a view to reducing the number of bone injuries horses sustain while racing.

With that in mind you might think the report would include some data on the current and past numbers of horses that have sustained these types of injuries, or at least the number of recorded fatalities at race meetings, but not a single number was included to support this area of work.

Lots of numbers on the equine anti-doping endeavours of the Veterinary department with a full breakdown of the numbers of urine, hair and blood samples taken from horses both in and out of competition during 2024 (445 less samples taken than in 2023), but zero data when it came to horse welfare.

Though we were at least given some reassurances that the tax payers' money is getting well spent as the report tells us that all the horse welfare efforts had "evidenced a shift towards injury reduction."

Legal Challenges for the IHRB

The Veterinary section of the IHRB's Annual Report ironically included the following sentence: "We started 2024 by welcoming two new colleagues into the team, Dr Lesley Ferguson as Deputy Head of Veterinary Policy and Emer Bermingham as Veterinary Regulatory Administrator."

Just one month after the publication of this report we now learn that Emer Bermingham has already left the organisation and is now taking a civil case against the Regulatory Body, claiming damages for defamation. It has also been reported that the Work Relations Commission has received a claim of constructive dismissal related to the same former employee of the IHRB.

The IHRB is also currently involved in two other court cases concerning trainer Paddy Twomey and Ronan McNally, who have both taken High Court actions against the Regulator.

The defending of these court actions must be diverting significant resources away from the IHRB's regulatory functions. Perhaps their 2025 Annual Report will shed light on just how costly they have been for the organisation.