NOTHING is as consistent as the inconsistency of the stewarding in British racing.

Well, that’s a bit of a generalisation but the rather subjective nature of the upholders of racing’s rules was again made obvious at the weekend following a controversial finish to the Lancashire Oaks.

After a rough race for the Haydock Group 2, Rab Havlin was slapped with a five-day ban for his ride on the winner Free Wind.

He had gone for a gap between front-running Eshaada and the rail over two furlongs from home. The pair came together when Jim Crowley’s mount edged towards the far side.

Most observers thought the former champion jockey might be in hot water for shutting the door on Havlin and causing the two fillies to become involved in a spot of ‘argy bargy’.

It was, in fact, Havlin that copped the punishment despite there appearing to be enough room for Free Wind prior to Eshaada closing the door.

Whether that was an intentional manoeuvre or an accidental drift and whether there was enough room or Havlin was chancing his arm is irrelevant to the root of the problem.

It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that something must be done to put an end to such potentially dangerous incidents to make race-riding safer.

Some have suggested increased bans or financial penalties for guilty riders would solve the issue. Others want a change in the rules to make it more likely that horse causing interference would be chucked out by the stewards rather than be given the benefit of the doubt.

All are legitimate arguments but none of them will work until you get consistency in the upholding of the rules.

There is no way any changes can have a positive effect until racing eradicates the lottery of the decision making.

It cannot progress when similar scenarios are returning different outcomes. When wildly different results and punishments are being decided on which course on which day the race takes place there is always going to be inconsistencies.

Minimising this can only happen when the pool of stewards is smaller. It would be wrong to point the finger at the individuals involved and analysing which decision’s right and which is wrong misses the point.

Nothing frustrates jockeys, trainers, owners and punters more than seeing decisions made one day that are different to the next.

You can change the rules all you like, crank up the penalties to draconian levels but until there is confidence that the application of those rules will treat every incident the same with a similar outcome then the tinkering is pointless.

Racing needs to get a consistent approach to the consistency of the stewarding system. With all the technology available and TV angles covering all aspects of a race it now calls for full-time stewards.

The best available might well be those currently in operation but these needs to be full-time positions to make sure the spectrum of opinions and approaches is narrowed as much as possible.

Then the rulebook can be looked at, the punishments examined. Until then inconsistency and frustration will rule.

Havlin is set to appeal his ban. I would imagine he will be a short price to succeed. If he does, it will shine another spotlight on the inconsistencies of the system.

And it will keep on happening until it is addressed.