Rather the issue is 'how were the changes implemented at the start of the season ever allowed in the first place?'.

Let's get one thing straight, the move from a restriction of two entries per trainer per division of each race to three is because the system introduced at the start of the season had failed.

And it was going to get even worse with racing after February 22 solely at Sha Tin which allows for bigger fields - entry system permitting.

But why did racing move from no restrictions to two? Where was the lobby for such a move? The truth of the matter is that such a lobby did not exist. Not with owners, not with trainers and not with the press.

The only lobby has been to bring the entry system into the real world, to free it from its antiquated roots which are in the days of yore when amateurs ruled the roost.

The call has been to bring in a five-day system or at least to stop entering horses some two weeks before a race is due to be run.

Yet those responsible for the administration of racing do nothing about this, the real issue.

Instead they dream up a system where trainers are only allowed to enter two horses per race. Something which addresses nothing and only causes harm.

It causes harm because it means that races do not fill so owners don't get runners, the betting public get smaller odds and betting turnover is not maximised which means less money for charity.

Clearly, on its own terms this scheme has been an abject failure otherwise there would be no need to move from a restriction of two entries to three.

Nor is it as if no one knew that racing from February 22 is all at Sha Tin. This was known months in advance and cannot be offered as a reason for a change in the system.

The change in the system is because it failed. Pure and simple.

And now, why three entries rather than four? There is an unwelcome arbitrariness about the whole thing.

For five months racing has laboured under a misguided entry system. For how much longer must it continue?