Article by Chris Cook in the Post about abandonments

On the first weekend of the year, many hackles were raised in the troublesome world of racing, perhaps an early taste of the 12 months ahead. We didn't have much action to divert us, that was a big part of the problem, but there was also a lot of ill feeling about how some abandonments were handled.

That's not new, although the levels of frustration being expressed seemed unusually high this time. But it's quite often the case that abandonment of a race-meeting is then followed by criticism, either of the decision or how it was arrived at or how the whole process was communicated to would-be spectators and participants.

I often find myself trying to assess whether a clerk of the course has, in fact, done something wrong. The difficulty in trying to make that judgement is we don't have any clear standard against which to measure performance.

Where's our detailed protocol about how inspections and abandonments should be handled? Where's the list of obligations that racecourses are expected to meet when a fixture is in doubt? Where's the list of things that racegoers and trainers and jockeys and owners can legitimately expect?

The whole sorry business has never been codified and the result is that we're always kept off-balance when this subject comes up, we never quite know what to expect. That starts with the timing of inspections, which are all over the place; they can be any time at all and the timing is hardly ever explained. The subsequent question of when the result of the inspection will be published is just as opaque and wildly variable.

Why can't those things be standardised? We could at least have a default time for early-morning inspections in winter, and an earlier default time in summer, with the track required to report the outcome within a certain number of minutes. That way, we'd all have a clear idea of when to check in for important news, rather than spending all morning constantly refreshing racingpost.com for the latest news.

We should also have a discussion about how much optimism is acceptable on the part of a clerk. Like gamblers, some of them have a higher tolerance for risk than the rest.

I accept it can sometimes be valid for a clerk to delay making a decision until close to the time of the first race, because there really is a significant chance of the frost coming out of the ground, or the water draining away or some other problem resolving itself. But sometimes it feels like they're hoping for a 25-1 chance to come good and the only real reason for hope is that they've got their fingers crossed.

Some clarity from the ruling body would be helpful here, spelling out certain minimum requirements before a clerk can be allowed to sustain everyone's hopes with a late inspection. The BHA's stewards on each site can ensure that any specified standards are adhered to.

Even the question of compensation for participants is left up to each track. I'm told the usual expectation is that the racecourse will pay something like £300 per runner in the event of a late abandonment, where horses have already travelled. But there's no formal requirement on which owners, trainers and jockeys could rely.

It would also be really helpful for the powers that be to give us a rough idea of the value to the sport of each fixture going ahead. Then, when a fixture was clearly in peril, we'd have some insight as to whether a late inspection would be justified when set against the cost being risked by everyone travelling towards the racecourse.

Organisers need to remember that the goodwill of racing's audience is part of that cost. Every time you drag racegoers into the frozen countryside and then send them home unentertained, you're trying the patience of our supporters and potentially thinning out their numbers. It is not something to be done lightly or repeatedly.

The weather in Britain and Ireland can be thoroughly unhelpful, as we're all aware. Forecasts can be completely wrong. There can be a need for flexibility in organising inspections.

But it can be flexibility within a known framework. Let's bring some clarity, stability and predictability into this chaotic little world of inspections, precautionary or otherwise.

There will still be disappointment at times but such things are easier to bear when we can all see that the right procedures were followed and no one was taking silly risks with our time and money.