A Matter Of Discipline

Corruption – not the prettiest of words, but a word that has been to the fore in recent weeks with several high profile disciplinary panels sitting and pronouncing.


Their verdicts have been nothing, if not, controversial and have posed more questions than answers.


The biggest anomaly has been the varying punishments handed out.


Trainer Karl Burke has been handed one year disqualification for associating with a disqualified individual. The disciplinary panel verdict makes good reading and one can see, and agree, with their reasoning and the punishment handed out.


Contrast Burkes punishment to that handed down to jockey Fergal Lynch. A jockey who admitted throwing races, in most eyes one of the most heinous crimes in the sport, outside being cruel to horses. Yet he was able to ‘plea bargain’ a, or him, modest fine and a informal agreement not to ride in this country for a year.


Yet he was, until the US authorities intervened, able to continue his career overseas. His “punishment” made an absolute mockery of the disciplinary process. He should have faced a “minimum” worldwide ban from all aspects of racing for five years and when that ban was over still never be able to ride for life.


Paul Struthers who is the BHA’s official spokesman, who must surely have one of the most difficult and unenviable jobs in PR, says the BHA are currently reviewing the penalty structure – and not before time.


However reviewing the structure is one thing, implementing it is another.


Disciplinary hearings are heard by independent panels who, even now, err on the side of extreme caution and frequently come in with punishments below the recommended entry points.


Yes the authorities are in a difficult position.


We are now living in a society where litigation is commonplace and those facing bans which will effectively deprive them of their livelihoods, will fight such decisions in the courts – after all what have they to lose?


The authorities, reluctant to incur costs or attract bad publicity, will then fight shy of legal action and compromise.


Therein lies a vicious circle.


The answer. Review the rules and punishments, ensuring they are fair and the punishment fits the crime. Also ensure the penalties are legally enforceable taking into account relevant legislation.


Ensure there is a fair an open disciplinary process. I am not advocating public hearings but allow a press presence – it can be a single pooled reporter to prevent the hearing becoming some form of freak show – with reporting being on the same basis as criminal cases to protect all parties.


Allow an adequate appeals process.


When due process is complete, if the individual then wants to take legal action it should be challenged and fought all the way by the authorities.


If the process is correct and the punishment deemed appropriate by the authorities then they should have nothing to fear, it should stand up to scrutiny in the courts. By standing up to and contesting such actions it will send out the message the authorities mean business. It will only need one or two failed court actions by corrupt trainers or jockeys for the message to be clearly sent out that corruption will not be tolerated.


In this mornings Racing Post I read the Racecourse Association Chief Executive, Stephen Atkins, is suggesting racecourses should take responsibility for integrity. I have never heard such a half baked suggestion and if that is the sort of suggestion emerging from the racecourses then I despair for the future of the sport.


Integrity is the responsibility of the central authority, in this case the BHA. Having different courses looking after integrity would be farcical.


Atkins has already admitted it could be “more cost-effective” for that read lower priority.


Racecourses already employ Clerks Of Courses and we already know the pressure they come under to race at almost all costs – regardless of the integrity and safety of the course.


Most Clerks will admit, off the record of course, they come under pressure to race when the decisions are borderline. After all it is financially better for the courses to get one race run, thus avoiding the need to refund customers, than to abandon before racing.


Can you imagine a similar scenario with integrity – would a particular course want the stigma of having an iffy race run on their track? Would they turn a blind eye to borderline infringements?

For all its faults I would much rather have integrity controlled, managed and financed centrally.

A Logistical Nightmare

In terms of racing I like to set myself some challenges each year and a regular one is to try and visit every UK racecourse at least once every calendar year.

After all, as I write reviews of courses it is only fair to visit them all as often as possible.

It sounds easy on paper, just over sixty courses works out at just over one and a bit a week.

If only it were that easy.

I have just spent the best part of a week sorting out my racing for the remainder of the year and to fit in the 22 outstanding courses I still have to visit in 2009.

The first priority planning is to put in the “must do’s” i.e. Cheltenham Festival, Derby meeting, Royal Ascot etc.

The second consideration is that Mother Nature will do her utmost to thwart your plans.

In 2008 I failed to reach my goal by one – York, whose August meeting was rained off and, due to drainage work, the latter meetings in 2008 had been transferred elsewhere, so I had no fallback.

So when planning the trips I make sure the first planned trip to a course is not their last scheduled meeting of the year, because if it is called off your plans are stuffed.

What I then try and do is fit in the courses with very few meetings.

Cartmel, for example, has only six meetings a year and it would be a travesty to miss out on a visit there, having said that it has now become a tradition that we go to Cartmel’s opening evening meeting.

The next big problem is the travel logistics – obviously it is a bit silly planning Newcastle one day then Newton Abbot the next.

What I attempt to do with the more “far flung” courses is find dates when nearby courses are racing on consecutive days. For example in May, Newton Abbot had a Tuesday evening meeting and Exeter, a few miles down the road was racing the following afternoon.

This weekend there is racing at Ripon on Saturday and Redcar on Sunday, so another handy double header.

I really thought I had hit the jackpot when I saw there was one day where Hexham had an afternoon meeting and Newcastle had a meeting the very same evening, only to be deflated when I realised it was the same day as the Epsom Derby.

The Scottish tracks throw up their own unique challenges in that not only do I have to slot them into the calendar, I also have to try and find cheap flights which fit in with the race times. Very tricky in the summer when the later race times leave little time to get back to the airport for the last flight of the day.

Indeed it was a Scottish course, Hamilton, that has caused me the most angst in my latter 2009 planning.

Despite my earlier comment about avoiding the final meeting of the season my visits to Hamilton, the last few years, have tended to be to their finale meeting at the end of September.

This year I cannot attend the finale meeting due to a previous commitment, so it was a case of going to one of the others.

Was it simple?

Was it heck!!!

Indeed had I any remaining hair I would have pulled it out. On paper it looked easy – there were eight alternate meetings.

Of those, five were evening meetings, not really practical when you live 340 miles away. Of the three remaining meetings one was only two weeks away and therefore impossible to get any cheap flights or trains and both the others clashed with pre-arranged family events.

Eventually I decided one of the pre-arranged family events would have to be missed – not a popular decision but c’est le vie and at least I managed to book a cheap flight.

Other unforeseen factors can screw the planning as well.

It was just my luck to pick up a dose of ‘flu after Ascot and that resulted in having to miss three visits to courses for the first time in 2009. All of which had to be slotted in on other dates.

Just moving those three days resulted in twelve other race meeting visits having to be switched.

Of course there are occasions when cancellations can work to your advantage.

With the decimation of turf racing in January it meant I managed to get all the all-weather courses done and dusted by the end of January. With the added bonus that I actually, unintentionally, attended what looks like being Great Leighs final meeting.

So when you read the up to date course reviews on my web site (www.ors-racing.co.uk) , or follow the live updates from the track, please spare a though for the behind the scenes traumas that took place in planning the visits.

Must Try Harder

It has not been a particularly good week for racing, with ice cream Gate at Salisbury, the farcical water situation at Worcester and the Nicky Henderson doping enquiry result.

Now we have whinging bookmakers, i.e. Coral, throwing their toys out of the pram complaining the publication of the Henderson verdict overshadowed their sponsorship of the Eclipse Stakes at Sandown on Saturday.

First of all Simon Clare says, "Not only as the sponsor of the Eclipse, but also as an organisation which has been working really hard with other factions in racing in this re-branding exercise, it was gutting and galling to find that coverage on the day of what was arguably the biggest Flat race in Britain this year was decimated because of information disseminated by the governing body.

"We have got a great relationship with the BHA, and have already had conversations with them about it, and hard to believe though it may be, they do claim that under the current disciplinary system, because it is an independent judicial process, they cannot control the timing."

Then a Coral employee, James Knight, goes onto one of the leading racing forums and actually suggests the BHA should have deliberately delayed publication of the report until the Monday morning after the Eclipse.

What he is, in effect, saying is coverage of a race his organisation have so generously deemed to sponsor is far more important than publishing a report that is central to the integrity of the sport.

It is perhaps unfair to single out Coral for criticism, however the comments of both Clare and Knight underline the arrogance of bookmakers and their perceived self importance within the sport.

It doesn’t help we only have a single industry paper, the Racing Post, and the editorial team are very much in the pocket of the bookmakers and are very loath to criticise them unless they absolutely have to.

As one of the PR representatives of the big bookmakers once said, “the (Racing) Post need our advertising money to survive, they are not going to upset the apple cart.”

Even Paul Struthers the BHA Spokesman said, “We always try and avoid announcing these results ahead of big events.”

Why?

Surely announcing the findings of a hearing which involves the integrity of the sport is far more important than a “big event”.

If publishing the results of enquiries are considered less important than, say The Eclipse, what sort of message does this send out?

Are we seriously supposed to find it acceptable for the issuing of “bad news” to be buried or deferred, so not as to offend the sensibilities of the sponsor of a particular race?

As for Simon Clare’s crocodile tears, would he have made a similar utterance had Saturday’s race been the William Hill Eclipse?

I somehow suspect not, although I also suspect if that were the case then it would be David Hood making similar utterances.

Now bookmakers, for better or worse, have an integral role in our sport, however contrary to what they may think they are not the be all and end all.

Their influence is disproportionate to their actual significance.

Their relationship with the authorities and large sectors of the media is far too cosy, one hopes the Gambling Commission will look at the cosy relationships that exist.

The findings of the Henderson case is very important for the industry. It needs to be discussed both in the racing and wider press.

The findings are also interesting and pose more questions than they answer. The implication is the mis-use of drugs is more widespread than is being admitted.

The role of the vet in this matter is also an area requiring greater investigation.

This is the perfect opportunity for the BHA to grab the nettle and be seen to be making a serious attempt to clean up the sport.

However I am not hopeful.

Jon Ryan, the BHA Director of Communications, speaking of the vets involvement, told the Racing Post, “There will not be a targeting of any yards where Mr Main is the vet.

"The proof in the Henderson case came as a result of a random test.

"Chasing possible skeletons in cupboards would not be beneficial - the proof required for a disciplinary hearing would not be there because you need a positive test to start proceedings."

What absolute rubbish. Yards should be visited at random, records checked and samples taken, if the tests prove negative fine. If they prove positive then the BHA have the evidence to start proceedings.

Comments like Ryan’s throw doubts on the seriousness of the BHA to address the issue head on.

How many more integrity hearings are we going to have to sit through before the BHA stop taking a namby pamby approach and address the issues head on?