MADAM,

I READ with interest your item of the last edition re the results of an HSI investigation into alleged wrongdoing and I must agree with the quoted view of solicitor Andrew Coonan that it was surprising that an anonymous complaint triggered such an inquiry with the resulting costs.

It is however for the board of HSI to justify if incurring such legal expenses like “snuff at a wake”, is an appropriate use of limited resources.

Unfortunately my concern is focused much closer to home, namely at the standards and actions of your publication The Irish Field but also the primary focus of your editorial that week.

While I appreciate that “scandal” sells newspapers, since when in the proud 150-year tradition of fair and balanced journalist standards, which is the hallmark of The Irish Field, does a story based on an anonymous complaint rise to the standard of editorial comment.

The inclusion of the dreaded word rapping left a cloud overhanging not only the management of the programme in question but also all associated support staff and all riders participating in the training as I am sure that you know under FEI rules they are deemed to be the “responsible parties”.

Moreover as a publication that has done so much to highlight mental health issues in our industry “did the penny not drop” when considering how to treat this story, with the potential for untold mental stress likely to be caused over many months to those having to labour under the cloud of suspicion, and all based on an anonymous letter?

At a very minimum surely the conclusions by a sports law barrister that none of the allegations were upheld warranted the same prominence in last week’s edition as the initial story in addition to editorial comment by your good self.

If the above were not cause enough for me to be unhappy reading last week’s issue imagine my reaction when I read the paper’s main editorial and the re-stating by your editor of its long held and completely correct policy of not printing letters from anonymous sources. The issue referred to in the unprinted anonymous letter i.e. a plea to racing powers re number of entries, is I am sure important but hardly equates to the potential to damage people’s reputation and their mental health that was the subject of your editorial in the HSI case.