You might think it impossible for racing to embarrass itself any more thoroughly than it did at Carlisle last Thursday when jockey Tony Dobbin made a winning end to his career courtesy of a ride on the runner-up charitably described as incompetent. Yet, with its dissenting reaction to the stewards' decision to find the runner-up guilty of non-trying, the sport has managed even that feat.

Michael McAlister, the jockey in question, was referred to the British Horseracing Authority's disciplinary panel under Rule 157, entitled “Intent to conceal”. This means the Carlisle stewards believed he may be guilty of a) “deliberately not riding a horse to obtain the best possible placing”, b) “deliberately preventing a horse from winning”, c) “purposely not riding out a horse that would otherwise have won”, d) riding a “horse which has been intentionally restrained” or e) riding a “horse which has intentionally not been asked for sufficient effort”.

The BHA's integrity-services team will now investigate further before a date is set for what in effect will be a rehearing. McAlister, who could face a ban of between 28 and 90 days if the original finding is upheld, has protested his innocence and dismissed suggestions that he did not want to spoil Dobbin's farewell as “quite stupid”.

Various observers have attacked the stewards' verdict, from the runner-up's trainer to Channel 4 Racing pundit John Francome. Newspaper coverage varied. Four omitted to mention the controversy, whereas three rivals described McAlister's ride variously as “tender”, spending “the final strides...fussing over his reins instead of driving for the finish” and having “dropped his reins twice...also switched his whip twice for no apparent reason in the last 75 yards”.

In online forums, once the outrage had subsided, contributors discussed whether it was advisable to require jockeys to take their final rides in races explicitly styled as testimonials. They cited certain unsatisfactory races that coincided with a celebratory occasion, such as a comeback ride after serious injury, and considered the permissive attitude this implies.

The sport's insiders can pretend such debate has no validity but nowadays races are filmed from multiple angles and available to watch on demand on the internet. That means if someone claims black is white, their words can be tested against pictures. It means racing cannot be conducted as a private game or dark art. Not unless it actively seeks to be a laughing stock.

We can go to www.racingpost.co.uk and type 'Lord Samposin', McAlister's mount, in its search engine. For ten pence, we can watch the race. We can search for 'McAlister' and find he has ridden in 601 races in the past five seasons and won 43 of them. For comparison purposes, on www.attheraces.com you can watch him, for free, winning on Lady Sambury at Newcastle on Monday.

Racing people protest that only former jockeys are qualified to analyse a ride, wrongly ceding no weight to the understanding accrued from watching races. Yet once a jockey becomes a steward, it seems, to these insiders, that they, too, forfeit the power of observation. Phil Tuck, who rode 1984 Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Burrough Hill Lad, was the stipendiary steward at Carlisle last Thursday. So it is a decision to which a former jockey was party that has been widely criticised by those hastily circling the wagons.

It is entirely correct that McAlister's ride is scrutinised and the whole circumstances of the race, not just that ride, are fully investigated. When all the necessary evidence is gathered, the authorities can make a clear-sighted judgment. Anyone with the sport's best interests at heart must applaud this, not undermine or ignore it. It's called integrity. Or perhaps racing believes it can manage without.