Another Year Over

Do you remember when we were children how time seemed to drag? It seemed like eons between Christmas’s and even school holidays seemed to last for ever. (Although there are many parents who still say school holidays drag on far too long)

Now, as I approach my twilight years, time just flies by. It seems only yesterday we were moving from the frozen desolation of December 2010 into the frozen desolation of January 2011, a period where we were seriously bereft of racing.

It is really a year ago that the entire Boxing Day program was wiped out?

I have this theory about “quickening” time as you age.

When you are 10 years old one year represents 10% of your entire life. When you reach 50 one year represents a mere 2% of your life so, relatively speaking, it is a much shorter period of time.

So will 2011 be a classic year for racing, despite some great equine performances it will probably be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

The 2011 renewal of the Grand National was not the best showcase for the sport, run in hot conditions we saw horses finishing exhausted and the winner being very much on the wrong end of his riders enthusiastic use of the whip. If that wasn’t bad enough viewers were “treated” to some appalling BBC camera work which showed two dead horses, one just covered by a sheet of tarpaulin.

We then had the controversial new whip rules. I have no intention of re-igniting the debate here, suffice to say I think it has been universally agreed, by both sides of the argument, that the timing of the implementation – just one week before British Champions Day was the biggest, of many, own goals by the BHA.

We also had the ridiculous, ill conceived,  tariff system from the Horseman’s Group, the incredulous delay to the issuing of the 2012 fixture list, the conclusion of a huge corruption investigation as well as innumerable smaller embarrassments.

Luckily we had some great equine starts to more than compensate for the ills delivered by racings administrators.

The brightest star in the racing firmament is undoubtedly Frankel.

Even those of us who prefer the “twig jumping” side of the sport cannot help but admire this exceptional beast. Unbeaten, he still seems to be able to win, even when impossible situations.

His victory in the 2,000 Guineas at Newmarket must rate as the most devastation demolition of a filed in a Classic ever. Even the, normally emotionless, tones of Ian Bartlett reflected what an awesome performance it was.

There are, as always, some detractors who say Frankel has only performed over a mile and to be a great horse he has to perform over further and show versatility.

I know I was embroiled in a debate as to whether Sea The Stars or Frankel was the greater horse.  In the end I narrowly sided with Sea The Stars simply because he has demonstrated a greater versatility in terms if distance. It was a close call.

In 2012 it seems connections will be willing to step Frankel up to 10 furlongs. If he continues to dominate at that distance I will willingly place him on top of the pile – I am really looking forward to seeing him again next season.

British Champion’s Day was heralded with strong views both for and against.

Fortunately for the organisers the racing Gods were smiling on the big day. Yes there was the controversy over a certain whip ban but even the most curmudgeonly person will agree the day was a success. The sun shone and the presence of a superstar, Frankel all helped to make the day a great one. I have to say it was only the second time I have seen a spontaneous round of applause as a flat horse entered a parade ring before a race. (The other, also as Ascot, was when Yeats ran his final Gold Cup).

Much as I love Ascot I do, however, think organisers Should consider alternating Champions Day between  Ascot and a northern course to give racegoers based in the north to see such high class racing.   

On the twig hoping side we saw the, possibly brief, emergence of the younger generation as Long Run took the delayed King George and The Gold Cup.

However the old guard were still to have a big say and the first indications actually came in The Gold Cup.

Although Long Run came home the deserved winner it was the continuing battle between Kauto Star and Denman which caught the imagination.

It was strangely ironic this was the first Gold Cup for a few years which had not been dominated by the Kauto / Denman clash in the build-up. Yet this race gave up the best battle between the two. It was the battle between Kauto Star and Denman which really did get the hearts racing that Friday afternoon in Gloucestershire.

The pair had mixed fortunes later in the year with Denman being retired and Kauto Star performing near Lazarus style performances.

Many, including myself, had called for Kauto Star to be retired after his seemingly poor performance in the delayed King George. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight I should have listened more closely to Lee McKenzie. When we were discussing the January King George he pointed out that Kautoi Star’s time for the race was within a going adjusted half second of the times he had recorded in all but one of his previous King George runs and that Long Run had recorded an exceptionally fast time.

The Betfair Chase was to be make or break for Kauto Star. As we all know he won that day, holding off a late challenge from Long Run.

So it was back to Kempton, with the King George back where it belongs on Boxing Day. Another clash between Kauto Star and Long Run, with the youngster sent off favourite.

Well we all know what happened next. The packed house at Kempton almost blew the impressive Kempton stand all the way to Heathrow as the Star really was the star and he recorded an unprecedented fifth King George win. How long before his statue is alongside that of Dessie beside the Kempton Parade ring.

There must be special mentions too for Big Bucks as he continues his domination of the staying division and for Carruthers, who was a great winner of the Hennessey for the wonderful, delightful but sadly ailing Lord Oaksey.

So a curates egg of a year but one where the equine heroes managed to salvage the poor efforts of the humans.

May I wish all my readers a Happy New Year and let us hope racing makes the front pages for all the right reasons in 2012.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I have received quite a few e-mails following my last article about the commentator’s review, every single one agreeing with how poorly they are being treated and how badly the situation has been handled.

A few people have asked me about the so called “fifth man” as some reports had mentioned five commentators under review. The four names I mentioned in my article were already in the public domain, having been published in the Racing Post.  As far as I am aware the fifth name is not in the public domain which is why I made no mention of them.

You Are The Weakest Link .......

It isn’t very often the world of racecourse commentating makes the Racing Post news pages, usually it happens on one of those very rare occasions when some poor caller mis-identifies a runner and some mug in-running punter burns his fingers.

However the 2012 commentator’s rota seems to be steeped in controversy.

First of all it was announced all three of the 2011 “trainees” would have 15 days commentating in the first half of 2012, as a trial.

Now that does seem to be a departure with tradition as normally a yes / no decision is made at the end of the year.

Of the 2010 trainees, only the exceptionally good David Fitzgerald was given a place on the rota in 2011, despite there being three” vacancies” following the death of Doug Fraser and the “retirements” of Dave Smith and Graham Goode.   

However even more surprising is the news that four of the existing commentators are going to be on a six month reviews in the first half of 2012.

Now it’s clear the powers that be wanted to keep this news quiet but they did not count on veteran commentator Jim McGrath venting his spleen on the pages of the Racing Post.

With Jim blowing the gaff, as it were, it was inevitable the names of the other three would come to light and soon the names of Darren Owen, Iain MacKenzie and Derek Thompson were in the public domain.

Now those who have made this decision about reviewing the commentators have obviously had their cages rattled as it has been reported that they have warned any commentator talking to the press about the matter will have his contract terminated immediately. That seems rather Stalinist and it strikes me as being a tacit admission they have screwed up, which indeed they have.

Mindful of the threat of instant termination for the commentators concerned I am going to have to be circumspect in what I write here.

However it is my belief, and the belief of many of my press room colleagues, that the four commentators have been treated appallingly.

The manner and timing of their notification beggars belief. They were warned by letter they may be reviewed and were told they would be notified of the final decision by phone, just before Christmas as well. Merry Christmas lads!!!

They have been told their performance is being reviewed yet they have not been told what they have supposedly doing wrong or are not doing correctly or what is required to achieve the right standard. That surely cannot be right?

They are effectively saying, "We don't like what you are doing but we won't tell you what you are doing wrong."

All four are long serving members of the commentary team and for them to be treated in this way is an absolute disgrace, whether their performance justifies monitoring or not.

   

Jim McGrath as well as being a racecourse commentator is  BBC televisions lead commentator and I believe that role may not have helped his cause. I think it is universally accepted that when he came to the UK in the mid-eighties he was a breath of fresh air and his commentaries were excellent and refreshing.

He joined the BBC in 1993 as No 2 to the legendry Sir Peter O’Sullevan and it was no surprise he replaced Sir Peter as the senior BBC commentator.

However upon taking up the BBC role he stopped doing on-course commentating. Initially this wasn’t a major problem but as the BBC racing coverage diminished he was increasingly missing out on “match practice” as it were and eventually re-joined the  rota. However since his return he has never had the same edge to his calling as he had previously and, arguably, he has paid the price for not continually commentating over that period.

Derek Thompson is very much a Marmite ™ character yet he is very popular with the courses, especially when they hold family days. He is a standing dish at Newmarket’s Friday evening music race nights and is a regular caller at Yarmouth, Fakenham and Musselburgh amongst others.

He was summed up by Musselburgh chief executive Bill Farnworth, who told the Racing Post “Just as you have horses for courses you have commentators for courses and Tommo definitely has a place among the commentating team.

“Musselburgh and Derek have a close relationship and he seems to go down well with the crowd. He might not be the right person to call the Derby but for many of our days he is spot on."

Should Tommo be dropped from the commentators rota I have no doubt many courses will still use him as their on-course commentator to the exclusion of the "official" Racetech caller.

Indeed the courses may well be happier with that approach as Tommo would not be constrained by the Racetech rules (which he does already ignore on occasion and could possibly be the reason for him being "reviewed" - although that is just conjecture on my part.)

Before turning to Iain MacKenzie I should perhaps “declare an interest”.

It is no secret in the press room that Mr MacKenzie and I are not the best of buddies and are certainly not on one another’s Christmas Card list. I’m still not totally sure how the animosity started and it is unfortunate, but it’s one of those things.    

However, I have to say, whatever differences we may have had in the past his inclusion on the review list is as manifestly wrong as it is in the other cases.

He restricts his commentating to National Hunt only but I cannot think that is a reason for including him in the review.

He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the National Hunt scene and I don’t think there is another person with a greater knowledge of the point-to-point scene.  (He also, apparently, totally dislikes Christmas – so there is, at least, one thing we have in common).

I cannot recall any major cock-ups in his commentaries recently, although the term cock-up may possibly be a reason for his inclusion.  At a meeting at Folkestone earlier this year an unfortunate rider pulled up a circuit too soon and MacKenzie actually referred to it as a “cock-up” during commentary.

Personally I though it to be an honest summation but I wonder if that got him a black mark with the powers that be?

The fourth member of the list is the most bemusing to me.

The inclusion of Darren Owen has to be one of the most perverse decisions I have heard in a long time, even the BHA could not make such a crass, stupid decision.

Darren is a perfectly capable, technically competent, good, what I would call "safe" commentator. That his performance should be under any sort of review absolutely beggars belief.  

So why has this happened?

I think there is a big clue in the fixtures being allocated to the three new commentators. All three are being given commentary slots at ATR courses.

A strange decision but it underlines something I have heard through the grapevine that there is a great deal of political (no pun intended) horse trading going on between the ATR / SIS and RUK / Turf TV camps on the committee which appoints commentators.

I have been told RUK/Turf TV are unhappy with what they seen as a strong bias towards “ATR people” on the commentary rota.

If this is true and I have no reason to doubt my multiple sources, then it is a disgrace that Messer’s McGrath, Thompson, MacKenzie and Owen are being used as pawns in this particularly nasty “game”.       

You Don't Fully Appreciate It Until You No Longer Have It

It is a sad fact of life that you tend not to fully appreciate something until you no longer have it.

So it is with my (formerly) trusty car.

We had gone a long way together, when I purchased it as a one year old it had a mere 13,000 miles on the clock. Last month, some three years later, the clock rolled round to 126,000 miles, meaning we have travelled 113,000 miles together or, put another way, 4½ times round the world.   

If the cars computer is to be believed I averaged 48mph in the time I had the car, which equates to me spending some 2,300 driving the car – some people spend less time with their spouses.

You will note I used the expression “formerly trusty” and I am speaking in the past tense.

Yes, a fateful Sunday, just over two weeks ago, everything changed. Normally one press of the START button was all that was required for the car to burst into life. This time nothing, the engine turned over and over but would not fire into life.

Thinking back the car had been a little bit sluggish for a couple of weeks but I wasn’t overly concerned and it was about to have its 126,000 mile service.

So it was time to finally use the breakdown cover, the very same cover I question renewing every year because “I never use it”.

Now I am not one to give free advertising gratuitously but I must give a mention to Britannia Rescue. Within seven, yes SEVEN, minutes of my calling them out a mechanic arrived – I did not even have time to make myself a warming cup of tea.

I left him to it and 20 minutes later there was a knock on the door, “it’s not good news I’m afraid, No3 cylinder is full of oil. It looks like a major engine problem.”

Not the news one wants to hear when you have a house full of visitors from Australia and you are relying on the car to ferry them around and, as importantly, get them to the airport for their flight home a few days later.

To cut a long story short the car was recovered to the local main dealer.

Next morning, once the service department were in, I spoke to them and they wanted, at least, £225 just to investigate the problem.

It was decision time. It was clear I would see little, if any, change from a grand with this problem. I also knew the car would need a new set of rear brakes (£525) soon.  Add to that the upcoming service (£290), it still had the original exhaust which would not last forever and, finally and at the service after next it would require a new cam belt (£700).

So I decided not to spend good money after bad and I, reluctantly, decided to scrap the car. I managed to get a few hundred quid for it which, at least, covered the new set of tyres I had purchased less than a week earlier.

However I was left without a car, something of a problem when you spend your life zipping round the country attending race meetings.

The visitors were taken care of by them hiring a car, which had the advantage of them taking themselves off to Heathrow at 06:00 whilst I was able to go straight back to bed.

My first non-car race meeting was to Sandown Park on the Friday, in theory a relatively simple journey. A train to Clapham Junction followed by a train to Esher, which adjoins the course.

A simple plan, in theory, ruined, in practice, by the driver of the second train failing to stop at Esher.  I wasn’t the only passenger looking out in dismay as the railway fences flashed by outside the speeding train. Eventually the train stopped two stations down the line and a couple of hundred discontent racegoers alighted, charged across to the other platform to wait for a train back to Esher.

The next day it was Aintree, I managed to book some cheap rail tickets but the return journey was slightly convoluted, involving coming back via Wigan, where I was booked on the 19:12 train.

Wigan is an “interesting” place if you have a couple of hours to kill in the rain.

Its one redeeming feature is the fish and chips are incredibly cheap. I bought some fish and chips for £3.60, back home it would be £2.20 for the chips and £5.90 for the fish.

I had reserved a table seat on the train home thus giving me the chance to do some work on the journey home, that is one big advantage of travelling by train.

What I had not counted on was the train being full of football fans returning to London, who had decided the coach I was booked in would be ideal for them and they somehow seemed intent on singing as many foul, crude and offensive football song as they could.

Eventually the “train manager” a mere slip of a girl, probably in her twenties, came down and told them to stop singing offensive songs. After getting some abuse they did eventually quieten down.

However after she had left the ring-leader of the football supporters came through the carriage asking passengers if they were offended by the singing.

Typically even those who had been tut-tutting and moaning to one another meekly said to him “of course not.”

Then he came to me. “Excuse me sir are you offended by our singing?”

I replied, ”No I am not offended but you singing is totally inappropriate and out of place on a train where there are women and children.”

I was half expecting to get thumped but wasn’t that worried as I knew there was a CCTV camera in the carriage.

To my surprise he actually apologised to me. It was also interesting to note that once I had said something the other passengers he asked all agreed with me, whilst those who had earlier said nothing looked suitably shamefaced.

My third foray into racing by public transport was Huntingdon for Peterborough Cup day, surely it would be third time lucky.

By car Milton Keynes to Huntingdon is 39 miles and it takes about 40 minutes.

By public transport it is either a train to London then back out to Huntingdon or a bus to St Neots and a train to Huntingdon.

I opted for the latter.

Now driving it takes me about 25 mins to get to St Neots, by bus it takes 90 and they charge you £11.40 return for the privilege.

So it was off on the 8:25 bus and I arrived at St Neots station in time for the 10:13 to Huntingdon.

Nope – the 10:13 was showing delayed, until just before 10:30 when it changed to “cancelled”.

The next train due was the 10:39 but literally every minute I waited the expected arrival time increased by 2 minutes, until it was rolling past 11:00.

Of course the railway staff were of no real help . . . . in the space of 15 minutes four different excuses were given for the delay and when I finally found the station manager he admitted he had no idea when a train would arrive.

So it was back home and a wasted day.

My next planned foray into the world of public transport was last Saturday and Lingfield. The problem with that one was I would need to set off 15 mins before the first inspection.

One big advantage with Lingfield is its close proximity to Gatwick Airport, which means by monitoring the ATC Met broadcast you can get real time weather reports.

Before I retired to bed on Friday night I decided not to go as the temperatures had already dropped lower than forecast.

I’m glad I changed my mind as I would have been at Clapham Junction when the meeting was finally called off.

My next planned racing trip using public transport is Ascot on Friday – I see the forecast is for storms – I wonder what the travel Gods will have in store.

Friday should, however, be a more auspicious day as that is the day I will have transferred the money for a new car into my current account.

I really miss not having a car – you really do not fully appreciate having one until you have to do without.

Racings "C" Words

Racing is blighted by the “C” word or, to be more accurate, two “C” words - committees and consensus.

Sadly, in the current climate, racing needs neither.

Visit the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) web site and hidden amongst all the information is a list of committees within the BHA – it is a big list.

I’ll swear, somewhere, in the spiders web of committees there is a committee to manage the other committees.

Of course the BHA do try and take us off the scent by calling the grander committees “working groups” but they are just the same.

The trouble with committees is they make any reasonable decision making almost impossible. They take time and, by their very nature, result in compromise and consensus.

There are many who will make the point that consensus should be the target, something for everyone they will say.

The other side of the coin is you end up with the lowest common denominator, nothing for anybody.

There is also the risk that having formed a working group they then have to, somehow, justify their existence.

This has been particularly evident with the review group set up after the 2011 Grand National.   

After months of deliberation they produce a glossy report with thirty recommendations – haven’t we been busy?

Actually no they haven’t.

The review document is a classic example of spin over substance.

“But we have come up with 30 recommendations?”

Maybe they have but most of them are actually meaningless or come under the “stating the bleeding obvious” category.

Yet another example of spin over substance.

Little else has changed in the racing world, the tiresome whip mass debate continues, the flawed Levy has reached an agreement, of sorts, hopefully for the final time before a proper commercial agreement is negotiated - did anybody else just see that pig fly past?

We may even, finally, get the 2012 fixture list next week which, guess what, will show little change from the 2011 fixture list – so racing will still continue with a bloated fixture list and the owners will still complain about poor prize money, be prepared for more yawns.

The flat season finished with a second jockeys championship for Paul Hanagan, well done to Paul and well done, also to Silvestre de Sousa who fought Hanagan all the way to the line.

With the end of the turf flat season comes the beginning of the National Hunt season proper and with it comes National Hunt weather and yesterday at Huntingdon was a typical afternoon of jumping weather, dreak, wet and cold but it did not deter the racegoers.

From my point of view the biggest problem with wet weather is the soggy note syndrome. There is nothing worse that attempting to make paddock notes and for you well prepared race card to turn into an illegible papier maché.  I have even tried laminating the racecard and using a permanent marker, all to no avail.

Then yesterday I found the answer to my problems as the judge, David Hicks, came and stood next to me carrying a clipboard with a hood, meaning you can write your notes whilst keeping them dry. Needless to say I am ordering one today.

Finally this month is now known as Movember as tens of thousands of men grow moustaches to highlight the silent killers of prostrate and testicular cancer. I am one of those acquiring an addition to my top lip, although rest assured come 1^st December it will be disappearing again because, as I feared,  my tache seems to have more grey hairs than dark.

However if you have not already sponsored anybody for this worthy cause then please consider sponsoring me at mobro.co/paulostermeyer thank you.

Punters Don't Rule - OK!!!

Sitting in my fridge is a packet of sausages from an upmarket supermarket where, on the pack, it obligingly tells me the very farm where the pigs were raised. It even has a photograph of the jolly, smiling farmer on the back of the pack.

Adding to the farmers coffers by buying his produce gives me the right to tell him how to run his farm, does it not?

Well of course it doesn’t, purchasing his product as a consumer does nothing of the sort, nor should it.

If I don’t like the way he runs his farm I am perfectly at liberty, as a consumer, to boycott his products and if sufficient consumers do so then he may be persuaded to change his methods and that is how it should be.

Turning now to the now tedious whip debate or, as it has been more appropriately called, the whip mass debate, one of the most frequent mantras has been why were punters not consulted? Indeed it seems to be a familiar mantra almost every time any change is made in racing.

My question is, why the hell should punters be consulted?

Punters are only indirect consumers of the racing product either via bookmakers or betting exchanges.

I see no difference in the relationship between the farmer breeding pigs for consumption by an end consumer, in this case the supermarket shopper, and racing providing a product, the race, for use by an end consumer, the punter.

If the purchaser of the sausages has no right to tell the farmer how to run his farm, why should the punter have the right to tell racing how to run the sport?

The punters relationship is with their bookmaker or exchange “opponent” not with racing.

Indeed there is probably a greater case for the pig consumer to have a say as the pig is being raised exclusively for the said pig consumer.

Whereas racing is staged primarily for the owners and trainers, with the punting being an adjunct, so punters are only a secondary player.

Of course the punters will respond “it is our money that is used to finance the sport” that may be correct but only up to a point. Although, strictly speaking, it is the bookmakers money which directly goes into funding the sport, albeit by a totally anachronistic Levy scheme.

It is no different to the way Waitrose pay the pig supplier for my sausages.

Arguably the supermarket is in a direct position to influence how the farmer does his job although only to a limited extent in that the farmer, if he wishes, can still tell the supermarket to get lost.

Similarly the bookmakers, for good or bad, are in a position to influence the industry but, similarly, racing would equally be within their rights to tell them to get lost.

The only way punters could have an indirect influence is by boycotting the product.

The trouble is, of course, it would never happen – well not to the extent it would have a significant impact.

In truth your average betting shop punter couldn’t care less about how the sport is run, if racing is there, they will bet on it.

Most bet for greed, looking for the elusive big win. They will bet on anything they think will give them the chance to win and even if they do fluke a big win, as sure as night follows day, they will lose it all again as greed prevails over common sense.

You only have to look at the increasing popularity of the virtual racing in the betting shops, or the number of people who buy lottery tickets.

Most punters are opportunists, very few make even a small profit from punting, even fewer actually make a living from punting. Most punters are losers.

Do we really want losers influencing how the sport is run?

Look at the proliferation of bookmaker supported all-weather racing, which is nothing more than the horse racing version of a BAGS greyhound meeting. 

Why is it bookmakers support this low grade fare?

Because it is racing in its purest form?

Of course not, it is because it is the type of product the mug punters, who provide most of their profits, lap up and it boosts the bookmakers profits. Who can blame them for encouraging it?

What the racing “purists” seem to be unable to recognise is your average betting shop punter could not care less if the whip rules are changed or unchanged.  If the whip was banned or there were no restrictions. They would still bet to more or less the same levels as before.

There are those who argue racing would not survive without the punter.

I would qualify that by saying racing would not survive in its current form without the punter, but is that actually a bad thing?

It needs to be remembered the Levy is only 50 years old and racing existed long before it was supported by a Levy. It would still exist, even if punters money were to dry up.

It would exist in a leaner, arguably, purer form. There would be much less racing at the lower grade but would that be a bad thing?

I love racing for the sport, seeing horses compete to find out who is the best horse.

Personally I couldn’t care less if betting was allowed on it or not. Yes I do have a bet but I don’t need to have a bet to appreciate a good race or a good athlete.  If betting were banned tomorrow I would still watch racing, I would still go racing.

To those who say without betting there would be no racing, I would say you are wrong.

There will still be the best racing, that will still attract sponsorship. What is wrong with staging the top races as Stakes races.  

There would still be a breeding industry but it would concentrate on the high-end thoroughbred and not the low grade, mass breeding, we have now.

Yes there would be job losses but, hey, welcome to the real world. Why should racing be exempt from real world financial reality?

For me it would be a much better sport in a leaner form.

By all means criticise those who are supposed to run the sport, they deserve it but do so from a position of being a lover of the sport, don’t use punting as a justification.

In the same way buying a pack of sausages confers no rights on telling the farmer how to run his farm, being a punter does not incur any rights on saying how the sport should be run.    

So I have no sympathy, no time, for the punter who thinks he has some God given right, by virtue of being a punter, to tell the sports administrators how to run the sport.

A Moral Question

I’m going to ask a question today and it is a question I am not going to answer myself but I pose it as a talking point as the whip debate continues to dominate the British racing world.

An oft used argument in the whip debate, especially from those approaching the issue from a punting stance, is “so-and-so would not have won the race had it not been hit that one extra time”.

Or “such-and-such is a lazy horse and he needs encouragement from the whip to be competitive.”

Although subjective, both arguments probably have some voracity behind them and there seems to be a general acceptance amongst supporters of the whip that it is a useful tool and it can help improve a horses position within a race.

Indeed many of those who are opposed to the whip would also concede the whip can be a performance enhancer.

If supporters of the whips use do not agree it aids a horses performance, then they must be asked, why carry a whip at all, unless it is carried exclusively for safety purposes, as in the Hands And Heels series of apprentice races.

On that basis we accept the premise that the whip improves a horses performance and, de facto, the whips  supporters are happy for an outside agent, in this case a whip, to be used as a performance enhancer.

So let’s now take another scenario.

This time a trainer gives a horse a drug which improves a horses performance,   a drug which gives a short term boost but has no long lasting, detrimental, effect on the horse.

Is this acceptable?

If it is then why should the whip be allowed and performance enhancing drugs not?

If the use of drugs is not acceptable what is the moral difference between one type of third party intervention, a whip, and another type of third party intervention, a performance enhancing drug?

What is the difference between using a whip to aid a horse to win than using drugs to aid a horse in winning? Is there a difference?

The simple answer that administration of drugs is against the rules and using a whip is not, is not a valid answer to the question.

The question is what is the difference morally between allowing the whip as performance enhancer and drugs as a performance enhancer?

Answers on a postcard please, or using this link.

Fixture List Delay

With all the brouhaha surrounding the changes to whip rules sight has been lost of the 2012 Fixture list.

Traditionally the fixture list was published in the summer although last year it was delayed until September.

A delay was also announced for this years fixture list as a result of the declining levy and the seeming inability of the Horsemens Group and Racecourses to agree a program with the BHA.

The announcement of the 2012 fixture list was delayed until September, then mid October, which has now come and gone. So I contacted the BHA to enquire about the fixture list, to be told by a spokesman,

"We’re looking at mid-November.

"This is what the Racecourse/Horsemen requested as a timescale to complete their discussions."

So it transpires the sports regulator, the BHA, is impotent when it comes to fixture allocations and the decision as to the structure of the racing calendar lies in the hands of disparate vested interests.

This sums up, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with British racing - there is no clear leadership.

This is another PR own goal for racing. How can a sport withhold publication of its fixture list until six weeks before it comes into play?

There is also the knock-on effect.

One of the Injured Jockey Fund's biggest money raisers is their Racing Calendar, which includes the fixture list - how many sales will they lose because of the late publication of the fixture list.

Many people rely on racing diaries to plan their racing, will the publishers of the diaries bother waiting for the fixture list to be issued. Probably not and having not bothered to print the diaries this year will they decide not to bother in future years?  More loss of publicity for racing.

Diaries and calendars are a side issue, more fundamentally this delay underlines the current of structure and "organisation" of racing in this country is not fit for purpose.

We have a regulatory authority whose authority is being continually undermined by the factional self interests of those who take part in the sport. be it from the PJA, Horseman's Group or the RCA.

Indeed with all the factional in fighting it is amazing the sport manages to carry on in this country . . . . no that's given me an idea for a film Carry On Racing.

The trouble is the reality is so far fetched nobody would believe it.  

Turning A Drama Into A Crisis

Once again the BHA continues to demonstrate its unequalled expertise.

Unfortunately the area of expertise in which it currently excels involves pressing the self-destruct button.

Although the last few days have also helped explain why there was an exhibition of JCB equipment at British Champions Day last Saturday – they have been purchased by the BHA to enable them to dig even deeper holes.

The BHA (and others) have managed to turn the new whip rules into arguably the biggest PR disaster the sport has seen, even managing to overshadow the build up to what was racings best ever day last Saturday.

Now let me say I was one of those to welcome the new whip rules and, fundamentally, I still support them. The rules did need clarifying and there was little doubt the ineffectual punishments were encouraging riders to flagrantly ignore the rules, especially in big races.

However, as is often the case, once implemented the snags become apparent.

Two aspects soon became apparent. Firstly it is very difficult, in the heat of the race, for riders to know when they cross the furlong marker. Secondly the punishments for a minor breach can be considered disproportionately draconian.

Matters came to a head when Richard Hughes received his second ban in a matter of days after which he handed in his licence in a spectacular fit of pique.

One of his complaints was he had not been consulted by the BHA regarding the rules.

That is a rather disingenuous comment. The BHA state the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) were fully involved in the review. Indeed the PJA issued a ringing endorsement of the changes.

It seems some jockeys believe the BHA should have consulted individually with riders. That is a ridiculous position to take.

As in the wider world it is standard practice to speak to representative bodies. Employers, unless it is a very small company, will negotiate with either a recognised union or a staff association, who have delegated or contractual responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the staff.

It is no different in this case. The BHA included, in good faith, the PJA in the review. It is abundantly clear the PJA either failed to or did not have the wherewithal to relay full details of the changes to its members.

There is an alternative view that the senior flat jockeys viewed the whip as being an issue for National Hunt racing only and arrogantly assumed they would be immune.

Whatever the reasons the PJA has plenty of culpability in causing the current problems.

So up until the middle of last week the BHA had done reasonably well in this saga although, with the benefit of hindsight, the introduction of the changes could have been better timed.

However since last Thursday the BHA seem to have lost the plot and have managed to make matters worse at every opportunity.

First of all there were a series of contradictory statements from BHA board members, which gave the clear impression the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.

Friday then saw the threat of a jockeys strike on the following Monday, although the jockeys were quick to point out it was not a strike but they were merely making themselves unavailable to ride.

It then took the BHA all day to produce a statement saying they were inviting the jockeys to a board meeting, already scheduled for the following Monday. 

Does that imply had the meeting been scheduled for the following week, they would have waited.

With the way the situation was developing would it not have been prudent to have discussions with the jockeys that evening. With modern teleconferencing it would not be rocket science to organise. No the jockeys representations were tagged onto the end of a board meeting as if it was some form of any other business.

The first indication the BHA were not really taking the matter that seriously.

Saturday was British Champions Day and matters came to a head with Christophe Soumillon picking up a five day ban and losing around £50k in prize money for exceeding the new limits by one stroke.

That single ride encompassed the two major flaws in the new regulations.

If matters were not bad enough they were about to get worse for the beleaguered BHA as the Chairman Paul Roy appeared on RUK.

Had it been a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight as Roy was no match for the peerless Nick Luck.

Frankly Roy’s performance was arrogant, crass and typified the arrogance of those who are supposed to run British racing.

Even those who generally support the new regulations must have despaired at this perfect example of car crash television.

Monday came and the jockeys delegation arrived at the BHA, although I was surprised to see Newmarket trainer  John Gosden has now become a jockey, he seems rather tall for such a role. On the other hand it was probably no great surprise to see him sticking his oar in as he and his with, Rachel Hood, seem to have become racings version of “rent a quote”.

The riders spent an hour and a half making their case and afterwards both sides made the right noises.

The BHA said they would make a statement by 17:00.

Most observers thought it would be a simple decision for the BHA to make, retain the count, scrap the final furlong rule and reduce the punishment for minor infringements. No more than an hours discussion at most.

It was gone 18:00 when the BHA statement appeared, saying the matter will be referred back to the original working party and they will report back by Friday at the latest.

Absolutely unbelievable but typical of a moribund organisation run by committees.

The new rules are fundamentally OK but just need some tinkering.

Racing is facing a crisis, is in the middle of a massive PR disaster, yet the BHA shows no sense of urgency – although, maybe, reporting back in five days is their definition of urgent.

The whip review group are all full time BHA employees. The BHA knew on Friday they were meeting the jockeys on Monday and if they had any modicum of intelligence they would know what the jockeys concerns were.

Why was the whip working party not convened on Sunday, in advance of Mondays meeting? They could then have presented the jockeys with a compromise solution.

Now the BHA board has come across as incompetent and impotent.

When I worked for a major bank we occasionally had problems which could have resulted in bad publicity which would have been damaging to the reputation of the bank. What we certainly did not do was refer the matter to a committee to discuss over the following few days.

 We did all we could to a) resolve the matter as quickly as possible and b) mitigate the damage at all costs. No manager who wanted to keep their job would even consider going home until the matter was resolved, although in most cases professional pride alone was enough that people did everything possible to resolve the matter as soon as possible.            

The BHA board have actually contrived to turn themselves into the laughing stock of sporting regulation – not bad considering they started from a position where they had the advantage.

Whilst all this has been going on what has happened to the 2012 fixture list, not forgetting the upcoming corruption hearings?

 

I would accuse the BHA of shooting itself in the foot if it wasn’t for the fact they shot them off some time ago.