Transparency is the foundation of racing integrity, yet Indian racing authorities often view questions and criticism as threats rather than opportunities for improvement. With mainstream media coverage dwindling and access for probing journalists increasingly restricted, the information vacuum is widening. Australia's approach to open inquiries and media access offers Indian racing valuable lessons in rebuilding public confidence.

The integrity of horse racing depends not merely on ensuring that races are conducted fairly, but also on convincing the public that they are fair. This distinction is particularly important in a sport where betting is integral to its existence and public confidence is its most valuable asset.

Australia offers an interesting example of how racing authorities can approach this responsibility. Integrity is treated as a specialised regulatory function, with stewards playing a central role in monitoring races, investigating suspicious performances, examining riding tactics and enforcing racing regulations. More importantly, there is an institutional recognition that transparency is essential to maintaining confidence.

Racing NSW, for instance, expressly endorses the conduct of open stewards' inquiries, subject to exceptions where public hearings could prejudice the rights or interests of those involved. Published stewards' reports, disciplinary decisions and inquiry findings further enable the racing public to understand how regulatory decisions are arrived at.

The press is not merely a publicity arm of racing. It is an important stakeholder with a responsibility to question, investigate and report. Its presence at objection hearings and other proceedings helps ensure that decisions are understood rather than simply announced. The media does not decide the outcome of an inquiry, but its independent observation provides an additional layer of accountability.

Unfortunately, Indian racing has a very different institutional culture. Racing authorities have, by and large, not been accustomed to being questioned. The press is frequently regarded as intruding into their space, while criticism is interpreted as an attempt to bring the institution into disrepute. There is an unfortunate tendency to believe that protecting the reputation of racing means avoiding uncomfortable questions.

This is a fundamental misconception. A good doctor tells a patient what is wrong, however unpleasant the diagnosis may be. A bad doctor conceals the ailment, offers reassuring words and allows the disease to progress until it becomes cancerous. Racing administration should understand that identifying shortcomings is not an attempt to damage the sport. It is an effort to prevent problems from becoming chronic.

The consequences of this defensive attitude are serious. When authorities refuse to explain decisions, when objections and inquiries are conducted without adequate public access, and when legitimate questions are met with hostility, suspicion inevitably fills the information vacuum. Among those who do not follow racing closely, there is a widespread perception that everything in the sport is manipulated. Whether individual suspicions are justified is another matter, but the absence of free-flowing information only strengthens such perceptions.

The problem is compounded by the near disappearance of legacy media coverage. There was a time when mainstream newspapers had experienced sports journalists regularly covering racing, questioning officials and reporting developments beyond the results. Today, in some racing centres, mainstream coverage is virtually non-existent.

Much of the responsibility for keeping the Indian and international racing communities informed now rests with just two dedicated websites. Their contribution to the visibility of Indian racing deserves recognition. However, there is a distinction between reporting racing developments and probing its administration. While one largely confines itself to routine coverage, the other has also attempted to examine governance, question decisions and investigate issues affecting the sport's credibility.

Such probing journalism has not always been welcomed. There have been instances of resistance, including denial of access to racing premises. This is particularly unfortunate when mainstream media has already withdrawn from the scene. Disagreement with a publication's editorial position cannot be a legitimate reason to deny it access to information and proceedings available to the racing press.

A senior Australian racing integrity official who has followed the developments has offered a particularly relevant perspective. He observed that the questions raised by the journalist concerned largely obvious administrative shortcomings rather than personal attacks on individuals. His central argument was that an organisation must first acknowledge that a problem exists before attempting to resolve it. Referring to a controversial stewards' decision at RWITC, he pointed out that the issue was not necessarily whether the decision was right or wrong, but why the reasons had not been explained to the racing public. In progressive racing jurisdictions, he noted, such explanations routinely form part of official stewards' reports. Withholding information only fuels rumours and mistrust. He also emphasised procedural fairness when authorities take action against journalists, cautioning that exclusion without a fair opportunity to respond can seriously damage an institution's credibility.

His larger observation deserves particular attention: racing clubs cannot prosper without public interest, and public engagement is possible only through an appropriate relationship with the press.

Racing authorities must understand that publicity and journalism are not interchangeable. Publicity highlights achievements; journalism also examines failures. A sport needs both. A publication must, of course, be accountable for accuracy and fairness, but criticism cannot automatically be equated with hostility towards racing.

Indian racing needs a change in attitude as much as a change in its administrative structure. Accredited journalists should have reasonable access to objection hearings, stewards' inquiries and other proceedings of public interest. Detailed stewards' reports should be published promptly, decisions should be accompanied by reasons, and restrictions on access should be governed by clear, uniform principles rather than the personal preferences of officials.

Australia's example demonstrates that openness can be built into racing administration. India need not blindly replicate another country's system, but it can certainly adopt the principle that transparency is a regulatory responsibility, not a concession to the media.

A sport that welcomes praise but resents questions is not protecting its reputation; it is protecting its comfort. If Indian racing wants to command public confidence, its authorities must learn to answer questions rather than resent those who ask them. The credibility of racing cannot be demanded. It has to be earned, every race day.