Racing Smiles

The Beast is having a break so some racing related smiles.

An inflatable jockey was riding an inflatable horse for an inflatable trainer and an inflatable owner, for the first time over the jumps. Leading easily after the last he pulls up too early and two horse go past him. After the race the jockey was so mad he stuck a pin in the horse, then he stuck a pin in the trainer and then the owner. He was called in front of the Stewards where he stuck a pin in himself. The Stewards said to him, 'not only did you let the horse, the trainer and the owner down, you have let yourself down.'

David Beckham decides to go horse riding. Although he has had no previous experience he skilfully mounts the horse and appears incomplete command of the situation as the horse gallops along at a steady pace, Victoria admiringly watching her husband. After a short time David becomes a little casual and he begins to lose his grip in the saddle, he panics and grabs the horse round the neck shouting for it to stop. Victoria starts to scream and shout for someone to help her husband as David has by this time slipped completely out of the saddle and is only saved from hitting the ground by the fact that he still has a grip on the horse's neck. David decides that his best chance is to leap away from the horse, but his foot has become entangled in one of the stirrups. As the horse gallops along David's head is banging on the ground and he is slipping into unconsciousness. Victoria is now frantic and screams and screams for help!! Hearing her screams, the Tesco Security Guard comes out of the store and unplugs the horse!

A young jockey and his stable lass girlfriend make the decision to get married. Everything is planned and the couple intend to honeymoon in Italy for a week. The marriage goes without a hitch and the couple set off on their honeymoon. While checking in the lady behind the desk asks 'We have two suites available for you, would you like the bridal?' 'No thanks says the jockey I'll just hold her ears till she gets the hang of it!'

The trainer was giving last minute instructions to the jockey and appeared to slip something into the horse's mouth just as a steward walked by. "What was that?" inquired the steward. "Oh nothing" said the trainer, "just a polo". He offered one to the steward and had one himself. After the suspicious steward had left the scene the trainer continued with his instructions "Just keep on the rail. You are on a certainty. The only thing that could possibly pass you down the home straight is either the steward or me".

The trainer said this horse would walk in. It did, but all the others galloped.


I bet on a great horse yesterday! It took seven horses to beat him.


The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip.

This Kentucky horse breeder had a filly that won every race in which she was entered. But as she got older she became very temperamental. He soon found that when he raced her in the evening, she would win handily, but when she raced during the day she would come in dead last. He consulted the top veterinarians and horse psychologists to no avail. He finally had to give up because it had become ... a real night mare.

Did you hear about the guy who went to the races and while there he observed a Roman Catholic priest who went over to a horse and sprinkled it with holy water. The horse went on to win the race, streaking ahead of the opposition. Before the next race he saw the priest go over to another horse and sprinkle it with holy water. Like the first horse it went on to win its race. The guy said to himself that if the priest sprinkles another horse with holy water I am going to bet every penny I have on that horse. Sure enough, the priest went over to another horse and sprinkled it with holy water. So the guy went to a bookie and bet every penny he had on this horse. Then the race started and the horse that the priest sprinkled with holy water dropped dead about 100 yards after the start of the race. The guy was devastated. So he went over to the priest and said, "What's going on here? The last two horses you sprinkled with holy water went on to win their races, and this last one you sprinkled dropped dead after only 100 yards. I had put every penny I had on it's nose!" The priest replied, "You're not Roman Catholic, are you?" The guy admitted that he was not and asked, "But, how do you know that?" The priest said, "Because you don't know the difference between giving a blessing and administering the last rights."

Tradition

Looking at the bottom of my computer screen it tells me it is 08:35 on Monday 22^nd August 2011.

So what I hear you say, well it is conformation the world did not end at 15:40 last Saturday afternoon, as predicted by many.

What was going to precipitate the destruction of everything we know?

No it wasn’t the latest experiment at the Hadron Collider attempting to replicate the Big Bang. It wasn’t a rogue asteroid about to hit the earth in a twentieth century re-enactment of the wiping out of the dinosaurs, although arguably dinosaurs were the soothsayers of doom in this case.

It was the running of a horserace on York’s Knavesmire – yes the Ebor Handicap was being moved from its “traditional” midweek slot to a Saturday afternoon. “Traditionalists” were up in arms, boycotts were threatened.

In the end it was a popular day, the crowd of 28,185 holds up well against the mid-week figures and arguably many were put off because they expected bigger crowds. By moving the Ebor to a relatively quiet Saturday afternoon the race became the centre of attention on what is the busiest day of the week betting wise. I have not seen all the bookmakers figures but the Tote report a 7.2% increase in turnover on the race this year but I would imagine the traditional bookies figures would also reflect an upturn.

The reality is, and it is an important reality in these difficult financial times, moving big races to a Saturday afternoon is generally a positive move.

I say generally as there are exceptions which prove the rule, the most notable being the decision to move Newmarket’s July Cup to a Saturday spot.

So why has the Ebor move seemingly worked whilst the July Cup move was seen as a failure?

The answer is actually quite simple. The Ebor was moved to what is, from a class and betting perspective, a very quite Saturday afternoon. Therefore there was an untapped potential, a void which the Ebor was able to fill.

By contrast the July Cup was moved to what was already a very strong Saturday afternoon, an afternoon which already had two top quality races. An afternoon where the addition of a third top quality race at a third different course proved the old adage you can have too much of a good thing.

What can we conclude from these two changes?

Firstly change is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the change can be justified, generally on commercial grounds. Secondly, change for changes sake and change where the consequences are not thought though is not a good idea.

However a significant number of those who oppose these changes do not take any consideration at all of the rationale behind the change, their stock argument is it is “tradition” that such and such a race is run on this day.

It is getting close to a generation ago that the Epsom Derby was moved from its “traditional” Wednesday slot to Saturday afternoon. Few will argue the move has not been a commercial success. The meeting is invariably sold out and the crowds still flock to the hill in their tens of thousands. Moreover the character of the race has not changed and the international audience has increased.

Yet there are still those, even in the upper reaches of the racing establishment, who still believe the move of The Derby is the biggest sell out in the history of the sport and they will still take every possible opportunity to bemoan the move.

The “tradition” argument has also been prevalent in the on-going debate surrounding the changes to the Grand National course, which – depending on your perspective – are either unnecessary tinkering with a once great race, carried out as a knee-jerk reaction to the 2011 renewal or they are progressive changes carried out solely in the interest of horse welfare.

In reality, as is often the case, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

I can see why people do believe the changes are simply tinkering and they are seen as appeasement. What really rankles is when the tradition argument is rolled out to justify a particular stance.

Tradition alone is never a justification for not changing something. Indeed, in my book, the only time tradition should be used as a determining factor is when all the other, logical as opposed to emotional, arguments fail to sway the verdict one way or another.

I’m sure when bear baiting and cock fighting were banned in England in 1835 supporters claimed they were ”traditional” sports and the bears and cocks would have to be slaughtered if the sport was banned, yet few sane people would argue the bans were not justified.

Now I appreciate cock fighting and bear baiting are a world apart from horse racing, however two common factors are public perception and the use of tradition as an argument against change.

Like it or not the Grand National is the “shop window” for British racing, it is the race most in the consciousness of the general public, especially those who do not follow horse racing on a regular basis.

The public will be more inclined to believe what they see with their own eyes rather than any press releases from either side of the argument.

Most sensible people acknowledge the likes of Animal Aid have an agenda and their pronouncements are treated with a varying size pinch of salt depending where you stand on the issues.

However it would be naïve to assume pronouncements from the racing industry should not also be treated with the same scepticism. They are, after all, just another vested interest.

Racing, as an industry, seems content the Grand National is its showcase race. Therefore it has to accept the consequences, that if horses die in the race then it will reflect badly on the sport as a whole. They cannot therefore complain when there is an adverse reaction.

On a forum this week I saw a former Aintree marketing executive advocating, effectively, stage managing the television coverage to show the race in the best light possible – he even used the dreaded “spin” word.

That would be a very dangerous path to take, it would be a route the public would see through immediately and it would do even more irreparable harm to the sport. If racing needs to spin what is it attempting to hide would be an obvious question.

Those who follow racing need to remove their blinkers and rose coloured spectacles and realise the perception of the general public of our sport is not as bright and positive as ours. Arrogantly proclaiming those in racing no best or that racing has its traditions carries no weight in the court of public opinion.

Like it or not racing cannot afford to ignore public opinion remember what happened to hunting!!!

I believe there are far better races which could be used as a shop window for our sport. On reflection I think the Grand National is a race which can ultimately do the long term future of the sport more harm than good and no amount of tinkering will change the negative perception the race creates. It is one of those instances where common sense has to override tradition.

Fixtures and Aintree

With all that has been going on in recent weeks the 2012 fixture list turmoil has almost slipped under the radar.

Put bluntly the BHA, who supposedly governs the sport, has little say in the fixture list, save for the limited number of fixtures which are funded by them and the rubber stamping of the final fixture list.

Control of the fixture list is effectively managed, if managed is the word, by the Horsemen’s Group representing owners and trainers and the Racecourse Association, the umbrella group for all the racecourses bar one.

Two groups with disparate, often conflicting, interests.

The BHA are certainly getting fed up with spokesman Paul Struthers saying, "We have urged the Horsemen's Group to develop their race planning proposals for nearly a year, with little apparent progress.

"We'll continue to encourage them and help them along the way, but it really is time for them to make progress on this and on other structural issues, rather than focusing on soundbites and PR. This will then allow us to work with them and the racecourses to find the best solution for the sport as a whole."

Meanwhile Racecourse Association chief executive Stephen Atkin said, "We are working closely with the BHA and the Horsemen's Group on the construction of next year's fixture list and we hope the work will be concluded by the middle of next month. The issues involved are complex and include both field sizes and the financial return from fixtures. "

No, the issues are actually not that complex but more of that anon.

The BHA has meanwhile announced a cap of 1,400 fixtures in 2012, which will result in a reduction in the fixture list of, wait for it, “at least 80 fixtures.”

80 fixtures – are they living in La La Land?

It is a given that the yield from the next Levy is going to show a significant reduction, something even acknowledged by the BHA, which in itself is a step in the right direction, as they grossly overvalued the yield for 2011.

In the real world sensible, responsible people live within their means. Businesses which want to survive work within their fiscal limits or they go bust, it is basic common sense.

Racing, as an entity – ignoring the disparate vested interests – seems to be adopting an ostrich mentality when it comes to living within its means.

As one who no longer has a mortgage and no debt, I am probably one of the small minority who bemoans the record low interest rates A significant portion of my income relies on returns from savings and investments.

With the low interest rates and volatile stock markets my income, like racings, has taken a massive hit in the past two years.

If I followed racings example, I would still be living my previous lifestyle, or tinkering round the edges, and would be heading down a route to inevitable bankruptcy.

What I have done is cut back drastically on non-essentials and luxuries and I am even watching the essentials – it is called living within my means.

Racing needs to do the same. The money available for the sport has drastically reduced and is reducing.

 
Yet all “racing” seems to do is bemoan its lot, complaining how unfair everybody, especially those evil bookmakers, is - yet it does nothing to address the financial reality.

It really does remind me of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned.

Until the funding model for the sport is resolved in the long term racing needs to cut its cloth to suit what is available and that means a drastic cut in the fixture list.

How big a cut? Well I would go for an absolute maximum of 1,000 fixtures in 2012. In all probably still far too many but certainly better than the tinkering seemingly being considered.

Yes it will mean job losses, it will probably lead to a reduction of the horse population.

It will mean racecourses closing down but that is a price which will have to be paid.

Other businesses and industries have had to make drastic cuts, why should racing be any different?

It will result in a leaner, meaner sport. A sport that will be in a better position to move forward, if and when a new funding model can be agreed. Although I have a worrying fear racing does not have the wherewithal to resolve the matter.  

Which courses could go?

Here are my eight to exterminate.

Top of the list must be Folkestone. A course not loved by many within the industry. It is situated on prime building land and its owners, Arena Leisure, would have no problem getting a premium, which would do their balance sheet wonders, should they decide to sell.

Brighton is another course which will not be missed in many quarters. Frequently at the mercy of appalling weather it is not very often one has an enjoyable day at the course.

Yorkshire is overly endowed with courses and could easily afford to lose a couple without a huge impact across the industry. I would suggest any two of Redcar, Catterick or Thirsk. (OK the pedants will point out Redcar is no longer is Yorkshire but it is still considered part of the Yorkshire set-up)

One of the Scottish courses could go, my preference would be Ayr, always a bleak experience.

In the “Midlands” few would lament the loss of Worcester. Whilst presuming a cut in artificial surface racing then either Wolverhampton or Southwell could go, with my preference for the latter.

Finally Bath, simply because of its inability to provide decent ground due to its lack of a watering system.

More changes have been announced to the Grand National fences following this years renewal and the deaths of two horses. Personally I believe the changes are more window dressing than anything else, in an attempt to appease the like of Animal Aid.

For better or worse the National is not the race it was in the past, in terms of the fences it has changed beyond all recognition in the time I have been watching it to the extent that, for me, it has moved from being a special race to a novelty contest.

To pinch a Racing For Change buzzword it has no place in the narrative of the National Hunt season, being a race over a unique distance, over unique fences with a unique number of horses competing. It is a race living on its history, it is at risk of becoming an irrelevance.

In my view the biggest problem is not the size of the fences but the speed the horses run and the number of runners in the race.

That is what needs addressing by a) ensuring the ground is on the soft side of good, b)reducing the distance to the first fence either by physically moving it, which may not be practical or by shortening the race distance and starting just after the Melling Road and c) reduce the field size to a maximum of 30 to help alleviate the jostling for position, giving horses and riders better sight of the fences.

I would also introduce additional qualification criteria in that both horses and riders can only take part in the race if they have actually "completed" a race over the National Fences.

    

Howard Johnson Ban

One story has dominated racing in the past few days and I don’t mean the greys race at Newmarket on Saturday. I refer, of course, to the four year ban handed down to trainer Howard Johnson by a BHA disciplinary panel.

I’m not going to go into all the details of what he did, or did not do here, they have been mulled over in great detail elsewhere.

It seems an eternity since the charges were first announced and it is unfortunate it took so long to finally reach a decision, a decision I think was absolutely correct.

The panel, who are independent of the BHA, have also done well in producing an excellent report explaining their reasoning for their decision and punishment.

I was hoping for a ban of around four to five years had he been found guilty, so I am not disappointed. Some have called for a lifetime ban and although I can see where they are coming from, I can also see why such a ban would not be viable.

As sure as night follows day if anybody in racing was given a life ban you can be certain they would be in the courts contesting the decision and it is highly probable the courts would deem such a ban draconian and unlawful and in breach of their “human rights”.

Johnson has made life easier for the authorities by announcing his retirement from the sport, however had he not done so he would, after the four year ban had ended, still have had to reapply for a trainers license and there is absolutely no certainty the licensing committee would have granted such an application. So an indirect life ban would still have been applied.

Turning back to this case I have to admit surprise at how weak Johnsons defence was, relying on the argument he was unaware of the rules in relation to the denerving operation and somewhat spuriously claiming the horses administered the steroids were not in training.

For a start, in any walk of life, not knowing the rules is no excuse whatsoever and it is negligent for a trainer, especially one with Johnsons experience, to use such ignorance as an excuse. When I began reporting on horse racing the first thing I did was obtain a copy of the rulebook (this was before it was online) and I read it cover to cover as well as always carrying it with me when I went racing.

In terms of the arguments about the horses not being in training when the steroids were administered, does that mean he was not taking training fees for the horses in question and that he was being charitable in housing the horses at his stables for free?

The role of his vets must also be open to question but as their actions are subject of an investigation by the RCVS it is inappropriate to make any further comment now.

It does beg the question as to whether there should be a more stringent licensing system for vets working in racing?

I know I have been highly critical of the BHA in the past but credit where credit is due in this instance where they have done well in prosecuting the case successfully.

A clear message has been sent out that where issues of animal welfare are concerned then no stone will be left unturned in dealing with the problem.

The world of racing is much better off without Howard Johnson in its ranks.

What I have found nauseating is some of the comments made after the verdict was announced.

Comments from Johnsons principal owner Graham Wylie have left a particularly nasty taste in the mouth, in that he seems to believe his trainer has done little wrong. Does that mean he condones what Johnson did?  Was he aware or complicit in what Johnson was doing? If so, does that mean he is a fit and proper person to be a racehorse owner?

Loyalty to ones friends is commendable, blind loyalty is condemnable.

Johnsons reaction is he has been the victim of a witch hunt. The BHA have revealed the investigation came about as a result of a tip-off . . . . perhaps the person who tipped them off was an animal lover, concerned about the treatment of horses in his care?

I have never met Johnson but virtually all the comments I have heard about him, from those who have had dealings with him, suggest he is not the most likable person in the business and he has the ability to alienate people. Seeing the findings of the hearing and seeing his subsequent reaction I can see why people can reach that conclusion – the sport is well rid of him.

The only unanswered and worrying question is how many other of his horses may have been given a “pick me up” over the years?