Racing suffered a series of embarrassing incidents in the past few days: jockeys taking the wrong course, a race starting too early, fixtures wholly or partly abandoned due to ground deemed to be unsafe. It may suffice to talk of self-regulation or human error in the first two cases, but problems with ground are too fundamental to shrug off.

Last Wednesday, Ayr abandoned 20 minutes before its first race when jockeys and trainers identified an area of unsatisfactory ground they deemed so glaring that they wondered how it had not been spotted earlier. That same night, the last three races at Sandown were not staged due to the risk posed to riders and horses by a slippery bend.

Then, on Monday, the last race at Leicester was called off due to unsafe ground. Three horses had already slipped during the day's proceedings, resulting in a fall for one. That same day, Redcar only completed its fixture after sand was put on the bends to aid grip. Three horses had also slipped or stumbled there, one of them also falling.

Producing ground that presents a risk of injury - or worse - to jockeys and horses is a cardinal failing. When this ends in abandonment, travel and staffing costs are incurred by riders, trainers and owners without recompense. Racegoers may get some or all of their admission returned, but they, too, have wasted time and money. More widely, the sport's credibility takes a knock.

Each incident is subject to a report that is sent to the British Horseracing Authority for analysis and potential disciplinary action. Whereas Ayr, where drainage work is being carried out, is at this stage thought to be a discrete case, the problems experienced at Sandown, Redcar and Leicester appear to share some features.

Those with first-hand expertise have spoken of “this difficult time of year” when there is a flush of grass growth and long, hot periods drying out the soil that, combined with a sharp shower or dewy conditions, result in a slippery surface, particularly on bends.

Trying to combat this dangerous blend by judicious watering is said to be fraught with difficulty due to the vagaries of the weather. If ground staff choose not to irrigate because rain is expected, it becomes too late to act if that rain does not arrive. More than one person has suggested, however, that better spiking of the soil, to allow water to infiltrate more deeply, can offset the threat of slippery conditions.

Whatever the detail of these unfortunate episodes, there is an over-arching problem. Whether the authorities and racecourses acknowledge it or not, at best there is a gulf of empathy between those who prepare turf for racing and those who ride, train or bet on the horses that run on it. At worst, there is a severe loss of confidence.

At the heart of the dispute is a mistrust of artificial watering. Suspicion lingers that it discourages deep root growth, rendering the turf more vulnerable to becoming loose and patchy.

A school of thought remains that racing should be conducted in 'natural' conditions, with the going dictated only by the prevailing weather. Yet this conflicts with research that links a greater risk of equine injury with firmer turf. Racecourses must abide by a BHA directive to water to produce, as an aim, going no faster than good-to-firm.

The BHA will point to their four-year irrigation study and extensive investigation into the effects of watering. Racecourses will cite the great strides made in recent years in their professional turf management, progress that has enabled them to sustain the existing high volume of racing on turf.

Yet there are other areas of dispute, such as concern that watering has been used in an attempt to eliminate natural biases created by an individual track's topography, but that this has only resulted in creating new, undesirable and unpredictable biases.

Conspiracy theorists imagine that taps are turned on or off at some big meetings to ensure the going meets the requirements of a star horse or influential connections.

But the discord stretches more widely. There are examples of race times contradicting the official going every week or where rails are moved, making sections of a track shorter or longer, without consistent promulgation. These details are pivotal to betting, so this industry only short-changes itself when it irritates and misleads punters.

There are many sides to this debate, many points to be made for and against each case, many examples of educated and misguided principles. The only certainty is that, publicly at least, it has not been given sufficient airing.