The central point here is that the racing public is fully aware that a very close scrutiny is being kept and action, where deemed necessary, is being taken.

This is not to suggest that there have been radical changes because we have had inquiries and running and riding suspensions in the past. But two lengthy suspensions in the first month of a new season must be something of a record - and gives clear warning that breaches of vitally important rules will not be tolerated.

Given these stringent bans and the no-nonsense approach of the panel, it is surprising that two more running and riding inquiries are on-going.

Apprentices Alex K. S. Yu and Eddie W. M. Lai gave initial evidence on Saturday at Sha Tin into their rides on Super Shine and Lucky Day respectively, but the stewards want to hear more.

Both claimers and their respective masters will appear afresh at Happy Valley before racing on Wednesday and that may well ensure a couple of sleepless nights.

Without touching on these specific cases, a general point in relation to apprentices appearing at running and riding inquiries must be made.

Without exception in the past decade, any claimer who has been given a lengthy ban for not doing his best on a horse has been adjudged to have acted solely on his own initiative - for whatever reason.

No action has been taken against the trainer and, possibly more significantly in the context of Hong Kong racing, the horse's owner.

Those who know this racing jurisdiction well will also know of the considerable power invested in an owner. Some trainers, locked into a situation where they cannot buy and sell horses at will and restock a depleted stable with fresh blood, have a constant worry that owners will switch horses away.

Loyalty is not a key word in Hong Kong racing and some owners shift horses on little more than a whim or a tantrum. Invariably, a horse has been fancied and not performed to expectations or, a dreaded Hong Kong racing scenario, one unfancied and totally untouted has got up and won. No money from a bet and loss of face for the owner translates into loss of horse for trainer.

Virtually all owners, down to the near depths of Class Six, play a very prominent part in local racing - and the vast majority of them know on raceday what is expected of their horse.

What we have been routinely asked to believe is that apprentices - and some senior riders - over the past decade have stopped a horse from winning, or not ridden it to achieve the best possible placing, without the trainer or the owner being aware of the rider's intentions.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that 30 per cent of those involved acted on their own - or for their shadowy supporters. That leaves much too high a percentage who did it with owner and/or trainer being aware of what was going on.

It is ludicrous in the case of young claimers to believe that they have simply gone out there and stopped a horse on their own volition, bearing in mind the close supervision of their lives.

It is, of course, difficult to prove how complete or otherwise was the involvement of a trainer or an owner in a jockey's racing crime. And the stipendiary stewards will want to see the rules of natural justice observed.

But it should also be borne in mind that the powers handed to stewards of any jockey club are very considerable. And we are not talking about the 'Law of the Land' here, but the enforcing of the Rules of Racing.

The day that the stewards stand down a Hong Kong owner and take away a trainer's licence is the day that our racing will truly have come of age.