Horse Racing, Life and The Universe

A Question Of Time

2012-01-30T10:16:00.002Z

Being a follower of mathematics and science rather than the arts it is probably no surprise that I am quite keen on time when studying horse racing form.

However timing of races is also one of my great bugbears. On the flat it is not an issue as with 99.5% of races an official electronically recorded time is given by the judge.

Occasionally the dreaded announcement “no official time was taken for the race” is heard and this results in inevitable groans in the press room as bags are explored and stop-watches pulled out so the race can be hand timed from the TV replay.

Yet in National Hunt racing time seems to be irrelevant as no official times are issued.

The times issued by the Press Association (PA) or included in the Racing post and Form Book are all hand times taken by race readers.

But how much credence can be given to these times and are punters getting an accurate picture of what the times really are?

The first point to note is, due to an attempt to cut back on costs, the PA race-readers work from home, so all the times they use come from the TV.

On course, most NH races are timed using binoculars and with a stop watch or even a mobile phone.

Now even timing on course is fraught with difficulties. Sometimes the start is unsighted from the stands - or someone decides to park an ambulance in direct line of sight.

Or, as happened to me in the last race at Cheltenham on Saturday, someone moves their head in front of my bins just as the tape went up.

Even seeing the tape can be difficult – most courses have bright orange tapes which are clear to see, but some courses have a light coloured tape which can be very hard to see, especially in murky conditions.

At Cheltenham and Aintree they still use the old fashioned starting gates with a single strand which can also be difficult to spot, although they do, thankfully put an orange marker at one end of the tape to assist those of us timing the race.

The other problem of hand timing on course is actually getting in line with the finishing post. At Towcester, for example, the press room is just under half a furlong from the line, whereas at Huntingdon it is well after the line.

On course it is not a case of timing the start through bins then the finish from the TV because you then have to factor in any delay in the pictures.

So you can see it is actually very difficult to get an accurate hand timing for races.

Often there are two or three of us timing races on course, yet it is very rare for us all to agree a time, even to 1/10th of a second.

These are the race times for Cheltenham on Saturday, PA times will be from TV the other two were taken on course:

Race	PA Time	RP Time	My Time
12:55	4’ 08.7”	4’ 08.84”	4’ 08.9”
13:30	5’ 24.5”	5’ 25.36”	5’ 25.1”
14:05	5’ 15.6”	5’ 15.42”	5’ 15.4”
14:35	6’ 32.3”	6’ 32.44”	6’ 32.4”
15:10	5’ 02.7”	5’ 02.00”	5’ 02.8”
15:40	5’ 57.9”	5’ 59.90”	5’ 58.0”
16:15	4’ 06.7”	4’ 06.80”	No time taken

The first point to note is the Racing Post / Raceform times are shown to 1/100^th of a second, which is utterly meaningless when talking hand recorded times.

It is interesting to note there are a also couple of ricks in the timings - my time in the 13:30 and the RP time in the 15:10 are two that stand out.

These Cheltenham time comparisons are actually pretty good - there have been a few examples where there has been a two or three second difference between the PA and RP times.

So be very wary of times in NH races and bear in mind in the UK they are all hand timed.

The Irish always produce official times for both flat and National Hunt races - surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man for official times to be produced for NH races.

So come on Racing For Change how about getting some official times for all races?

Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way Of Your Predjudices

2012-01-23T09:33:00.000Z

It has been an interesting weekend in racing after Ascot’s attempt to remind racegoers about their dress code spectacularly backfired.

It was an episode that did damage to Ascot but in my view it was more telling in revealing the true nature of many in the racing press, revealing an underbelly of hypocrisy and vitriol.

Indeed the whole affair is a classic example of certain members of the press, who have their own agendas, making a volcano out of a molehill.

Let’s begin by taking the emotion out of the events and look at the cold facts – I realise many will not actually like hearing the facts as it will contradict their nasty, pernicious prejudices.

Ascot has introduced a stricter dress code for 2012 which, for the Premier Enclosure, states:-

Gentlemen should wear a jacket and tie, smart trousers or smart jeans, no trainers. There will be an announcement on the day allowing jackets to be removed, should the weather be hot. Ladies should dress for a smart occasion; hats are encouraged but not compulsory. Children should be dressed smartly.

Saturday’s meeting was the first to use the new dress code. Now Ascot could easily have turned away racegoers who did not comply with the new code but instead took the decision to advise racegoers who did not adhere to the code.

Once a racegoer had been advised of the new code a sticker was placed on their badge to indicate they had been advised. The sole purpose of the sticker was to indicate the racegoer had been advised so that stewards would constantly be stopping the racegoer throughout the afternoon.

One can understand the reasoning behind the approach. Now we all know hindsight is wonderful but Ascot clearly did not take account of the fact there were people who would exploit the situation to suit their own particular prejudices.

A significant number of the racing media and media in general are what I would call Champagne Socialists, the sort of people who despise Ascot and all they perceive it stands for, yet they are more than happy to live what many would call privileged lives and, of course, accept Ascot’s generous hospitality.

For them this was a dream story, the type of story which would appeal to their chums in Islington as well as the poor oppressed “working classes” whom they profess to support but would never be seen dead with.

Of course social media like Twitter allows stories like this to gather legs as well, and it was soon a trending topic.

The trouble with social media is it allows stories to disseminate unchecked, the facts are the first to suffer and it is the extreme views which get picked up on.

Very soon there were Tweets flying around comparing Ascot’s stickering of racegoers with the labelling of Jews in Nazi Germany.

I would like to think I am thick skinned and there is very little which offends me. However having a Jewish antecedence and having relatives caught up in the Holocaust I found those comparisons deeply offensive.

However this error of judgement by Ascot gave our leftie media friends a perfect opportunity to stick the boot into elitist Ascot.

Even the Racing Post managed to report the matter emotively, its Editor Bruce Millington declared it “a hugely important story.”

It is not an important story, to quote Aussie Jim McGrath it is a “silly season” story, it’s most likely an important story for Millington because it enables him to engage in some toff bashing.

Talking of “silly season” what was with those stupid orange stickers they wore on ATR yesterday morning – were they trying to make some kind of point – to me it was simply a puerile, pathetic, immature cheap stunt.

You only have to look at Tweets and forums to see this has little to do with dress codes but has more to do with class prejudice. The politics of envy is still rife in the 21^st century.

Turning back to the original issue I personally welcome Ascot’s stricter dress code and I wish more courses would have similar codes.

It has nothing to do, as some will claim, with exclusion. Even at Ascot racegoers who do not wish to wear a suit or tie still have access to the excellent Grandstand enclosure which gives access to the parade ring and good race viewing. In other words they have a choice.

If racegoers want to dress informally that is fine but why should they deny others the right to dress up and have an exclusive earea they can share with like-minded racegoers?

There is plenty of vitriol being aimed at Ascot yet I see none directed at, for example, Thirsk which has a strictly enforced tie rule in their Premier enclosure.

Or how about Goodwood which has a very strictly enforced dress code which includes the same notice about permission being granted to remove jackets as Ascot has.

I would not advocate a strict dress policy at all racecourses, it clearly would not work at single enclosure courses but at those which retain multiple enclosures what is wrong with having some standards?

Some say they would not be seen dead in a suit and tie, that's fine. Personally I would not be seen dead in jeans but we all have our own likes and dislikes. Why can't both sides be catered for though?

If people do not want to adhere to a strict dress code they have the option of voting with their feet, if enough do so the commercially astute courses will soon amend their dress code.

Ascot state the rules come at the request of racegoers and the fact the Premier Enclosure at Ascot is sold out most meetings suggests there are enough racegoers who are happy to comply with dress code.

Why does it have to be dragged down to some kind of spurious class war, elitism or snobbery.

If media colleagues wish to attack Ascot that’s fine by me but if they are going to do it why don’t they front up and declare the true reason, namely a political axe to grind and ranting about their own prejudices, rather then make something out of what is in reality a non-issue.

By the way does anybody know how many orange stickers were issued on Saturday – let me tell you – it was less than 50.

Have Camera Will Travel

2012-01-12T11:37:00.001Z

There are some weeks when very little happens in the world of racing which makes writing a blog a little bit difficult.

So this week I have taken a look through some of the photographs I have taken on racecourses over the past year and I thought I would share a few of my favourites.

Obviously I'm not a professional snapper but I hope I have captured some of the atmosphere of the sport we love.

Festivals

I took this photograph of Derby winning rider Mikael Barzalona at Royal Ascot. He had not ridden a winner but he still seemed pretty content with himself and life in general.

This was taken after the final race of the Cheltenham Festival. It just seemed to be the perfect end to a great week.

The near empty betting ring and the moon rising over Cleeve hill.

The Queen loves her racing and she rarely misses Derby Day.

2011 was all the more special as she had a runner with a lively chance, also it was not to be.

Here she is holding tight onto her hat as she listens to the National Anthem for the zillionth time during her reign.

Courses

This one was taken at Warwick, looking down the home straight and showing how close the course is to the town centre.

A view most do not get to see looking across to the stands from the 2½ mile start at Huntingdon.

Many of our courses have stunning rural settings and Ludlow is no exception. The low sun really shows the spectacular hills in the distance.

Another shot of Ludlow basking in the autumnal sun.

Equine Stars

The Queen unveiled a magnificent statue of Yeats at Royal Ascot this season, the detail is amazing.

We have seen plenty of close finishes in 2011 but this one at Ascot in July was pretty tight.

However if we are going to be looking at equine stars there was only one in 2011, the mighty Frankel . . . .

This was taken after he crossed the like at Ascot on British Champions Day

I hope you enjoyed the photographs!!

Blowing Away The Cobwebs

2012-01-06T19:43:00.000Z

Well the first week of 2012 nears its conclusion and, compared with the last two years we have not done too badly at the hands of the weather Gods, with just two meetings ( Ayr – high winds and Chepstow – waterlogging) being lost.

The winds have been very strong this week and we are lucky more meetings have not been lost.

I was moaning about the cold wind at Huntingdon on Wednesday, it was a “lazy wind” in that it tended to go through rather than round you and no number of layers of clothing seemed to mitigate the wind chill.

If I was freezing cold with four layers, three of which were thermals, how cold must the jocks have been in just their silks? And I carry much more “natural insulation” than they do!!! It’s days like that you really appreciate how hard the jocks job is.

Anyway if I thought Wednesday was bad, it was like a balmy, breezy day compared with Lingfield on Thursday. Although no official inspection was called it must have been touch and go with the racing, as there were gale force winds blowing all afternoon, so strong that even I, at 14 stone, was almost blown over by one gust.

For those who do not know Lingfield it is on the approach path for Gatwick airport, being just 6 miles from the end of the runway. For saddos like me who happen to be aviation mad racing fans, it is a win-win location. Although the undisputed king of courses for combining racing and plane spotting is Woodbine in Toronto, the pair being less than two miles away from one another but I am digressing.

The point of mentioning the proximity of the airport is to actually underline how strong the wind was, as even Boeing 747’s were swaying in the wind as they came into land.

How the jocks coped with that I do not know and as if the winds were not enough as the first two races started the heavens opened with heavy showers. Brave lads these jocks.

The bravery has been underlined by AP McCoy who after a crunching fall and a couple of days in hospital was talking about “being back in a few days” despite braking a couple of ribs. If that was you or I then it would be a case of milking it for as much sympathy as possible and a long spell on the easy list.

The New Year began with a great days racing at Cheltenham and a day for some old favourites to shine.

2009 Grand National winner Mon Mome looked to be back to his best when runner-up in the 3¼ mile chase, only to be trumped some 35 minutes later when the old rascal Calgary Bay also rolled back the years to take the Victor Chandler.

Although the latter race was spoiled by the loss of the very promising Hidden Keel, a particularly devastating loss for trainer Charlie Longsdon as the horse was undoubtedly the stable star and looked to have a bright future.

Also a special mention in that race to commentator Richard Hoiles for very quickly picking up the fall of the favourite Havingotascoobydo, who managed to come down at the only fence on the entire course where fallers are often unsighted for the commentator.

Finally on a non-racing matter, I was saddened to hear today of the passing of Bob Holness at the age of 83. Most renowned for the television series Blockbusters, of which he presented over 1,200 episodes. He was also an actor and a radio broadcaster.

Years ago when I worked at the BBC I was involved with Children In Need on Radio Two and I had the pleasure of meeting and working with Bob Holness and he was a lovely, delightful man with no ego, unlike many top broadcasters.

It’s a cliché but he was a true gentlemen.

Another Year Over

2011-12-29T09:28:00.000Z

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 .......

2011-12-24T15:27:00.001Z

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

2011-12-13T11:59:00.002Z

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

2011-11-09T11:06:00.001Z

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!!!

2011-11-01T13:17:00.003Z

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

2011-10-24T09:52:00.000+01:00

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

2011-10-22T10:37:00.000+01:00

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

2011-10-18T09:59:00.000+01:00

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.

A Champion Days Racing

2011-10-16T09:51:00.001+01:00

Ignoring the little matter of Christophe Soumillon’s whip ban, more of that anon, there can be little doubt that the first British Champions Day at Ascot can justifiably claim to have lived up to its billing of “The Greatest Show On Turf”

Of course the organisers had a little outside help in that the weather God’s were incredibly kind and there was the presence of arguably the greatest horse of all time, Frankel.

However even the most determined Newmarketphile, even the most cynical sceptic must accept that yesterday went really well and once again Ascot proved itself the perfect venue of a major race meeting.

Rod Street and his team must be justifiably proud of the way the day turned out, although they must also be cursing the BHA in terms of the timing of the introduction of the new whip rules.

Frankel crossing the line

The balance of the days racing was good, although it may be worth considering a 45 minute gap between the two feature races as it seemed we were thrown into the Champion Stakes all too soon after Frankel’s impressive victory in the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes.

My biggest concern as the day approached was the on course presentation, my fear were unfounded. Back in August I was very critical of Ascot’s use of Matt Chapman’s on Shergar Cup day and I was equally worried when I heard he was to front the on-course presentation for Champions Day.

Those of you who read my blog last week will recall my reservations, although they were tempered with the comment that if anybody could pull it off then Matt could and pull it off he did.

I am happy to admit I was wrong and I believe Matt managed to get it right on the button. OK there were a couple of occasions when I feared his natural exuberance may have gotten the better of him but no he was good. Robert Cowell was also a good choice as the straight man to Matt.

My only question about the presentation team was the “value” added by Amanda Davies and I still cannot help but feel she was included as the “token totty”.

I must admit I also had slight concerns about the use of Mike Vince for the on-course commentary, not least because Mike gets very little live racecourse commentary options.

Speaking to Mike beforehand, and I’m sure he will not mind me saying this, he was understandably nervous, especially by the final 29 runner contest. Mike was not helped by the fact, with coverage by BBC TV and radio as well as the Racetech commentator, none of the “official” commentary boxes were available and he had to make do with a makeshift position short of the finishing line.

Because of his makeshift position he did not have full use of the multiple camera shots the other commentators had.

In the circumstances Mike did very well indeed, his calls for the Championship races were absolutely fine and he was able to link in with the presentation team.

He also made a very good job of the final contest, considering the pictures and angles he had to work from and he should be rightly pleased with his afternoons work.

The only real gripe I would have about the presentation is it seemed to take precedence over the judge announcing the details of the result. On more than one occasion we had to wait for the winning distances and race times until after a winner had been “called back in”. It may sound insignificant but those details are important and need to be disseminated as quickly as possible, but that is a minor gripe in the scheme of things.

Ascot, once again, proved more than capable of hosting a major international meeting and it is certainly a more “user friendly” venue than Newmarket.

Much as I love Ascot I do think consideration should be given to alternating the meeting between the north and south, if only to give racegoers based in the north the opportunity to watch such high class racing live. Although, selfishly, I am more than happy if it does permanently reside at Ascot.

One thing that struck me yesterday was how popular the parade ring was. There may have been just over 26,749 at Ascot yesterday but the numbers around the parade ring were akin to those seen at the Royal Ascot where the total numbers are far higher.

Of course for all the positives and plaudits of the day, as well as the high class racing, the day was overshadowed by the ban and withholding of fees for Christophe Soumillion following his victory on Cirrus Des Aigles in the Champion Stakes.

Much has been written about the new whip rules in the last week and it is clear some compromise needs to be reached. So to save the egos getting in the way here is the solution.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new rules so a “count” should remain in place, whether the current limit is correct is a moot point, we have not had any three mile slogs in the mud since their introduction. Retain the “count” but remove the final furlong restriction as it is abundantly clear it is difficult for the riders to judge when they have crossed the furlong marker.

The penalties need to be effective but it is clear the new penalties are too draconian for minor infringements. I would therefore retain the ban guidelines as they are now but would only introduce the withholding of fees and prize money for serious or repeated breaches. By serious I mean where the number of hits exceeds the limit by 50% or more (rounded up) or where a rider has a third breach in a rolling 12 month period.

Finally, Paul Roy should do the decent thing and resign. He has lost what little remaining credibility he may have had and, frankly his performance on RUK yesterday afternoon was an embarrassment.

My coverage of British Champions Day

Whip Rules and Sponsorship

2011-10-12T10:14:00.001+01:00

Well as day three of the new whip rule dawns I’m pleased to report that racing has not died a sudden death and that life carries on as normal.

That may be something of a surprise though if you have been taking note of all the doom laden and, in most cases, frankly ludicrous talk there has been on the subject.

There has been so much verbal diarrhoea spouted it is surprising there is not an outbreak of oral cholera within the industry.

The problem is there are so many entrenched and emotive opinions in the debate that many, on both sides, are not even prepared to listen to what the other side has to say.

As I have previously stated, I generally welcome the new rules and, even more so, the strong deterrent penalties, whilst having some reservations about the actual numerical guidelines, especially in national hunt racing.

Despite these reservations I unlike, it seems, many am prepared to give the new rules a go and see how they work.

Interestingly the first day of the new rules saw two bans handed out by the Salisbury Stewards and they, in a way, exemplified both sides of the argument.

Both bans came in the same race.

Kieren Fox was handed a 15 day ban for hitting his horse eleven times inside the final furlong, exceeding the new limit by four strokes. In my view this is a pretty open and shut case as Fox flagrantly disregarded the new rules, almost cocking a snook at the new regulations and, as a result has paid the price. Needless to say connections of the horse, which went on to win, defended the rider clearly showing their philosophy that winning at all costs is more important than abiding by the rules.

That the horse was able to win and retain the race by virtue of breaking the rules illustrates the folly of not withholding the winning owners prize money as well, indeed of not disqualifying the winning horse.

Some argue the winning owners should not be punished due to the wrongdoing on a rider. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion it could be argued a horse should never be disqualified no matter how serious a riding offence a jockey commits. That is plainly untenable.

In addition the owner is effectively employing the jockey to ride his horse. It seems racing is the only industry in the country where employers (the owners) are not ultimately held accountable for the actions of their employees (the jockeys).

The five day ban handed to Richard Hughes in the same race, however, shows the difficulty of having an absolute limit. Most reasonable observers of the sport would have found very little wrong with Hughes’ ride but he was banned for exceeding the new rules by one strike inside the final furlong. He was arguing one of the strikes was given for safety reasons. Yes, technically he is in breach of the new rules but his ban does illustrate some of the ambiguity and I believe a ban under the entry point of five days would probably have been more appropriate. It will be interesting to see what happens when Hughes appeals.

In the next few days we have Cheltenham’s first meeting under the new rules and, of course, Champions Day at Ascot, both will be extremely interesting, both in terms of what the jockeys do and how the Stewards will act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sponsorship has become an important factor in the sport and with diminishing Levy returns the income from sponsorship has become imperative for the racecourses.

I do wonder if race courses would draw the line at some forms of sponsorship?

As I write this I am thinking of one race in particular, namely the Sun Chariot Stakes, one of Newmarket’s major races of the year, for the race is sponsored by The Kingdom Of Bahrain.

Last week in what amounted to a political show trial, a group of doctors and nurses were convicted of various “subversion” offences with the convictions seemingly made on the basis of “confessions” extracted by alleged torture and sexual abuse. In truth these doctors and nurses were being prosecuted or should that be persecuted because they followed the Hippocratic Oath and treated anti-government protesters during the recent uprising.

Notwithstanding these show-trials the human rights record in Bahrain is appalling and one wonders why racing would want to be associated with such a repugnant regime.

As far as racing is concerned is it a matter of grabbing the money at any cost without considering the morality of its source?

Does racing really want to be financed by blood money?

It will be very interesting to see if racing continues its sponsorship links with Bahrain in 2012 and it will be interesting to see how it responds to the backlash if it does.

Whilst Bahrain is perhaps an extreme example, it is not the only example of racing accepting money from questionable regimes or businesses and it is a subject worthy of much more detailed research and investigation – watch this space.

Do I, Don't I?

2011-10-06T15:11:00.000+01:00

I have a dilemma.

A week on Saturday sees the inaugural British Champions Day at Ascot, the climax of Racing For Change’s (RfC) grand plan to add a narrative to the flat racing season.

On the one hand it promises to, probably, be the best single days flat racing staged in this country, with the added bonus of it being held at one of my favourite courses. On the other, it is in danger of turning into a form of three ring circus and from a “working” perspective it will probably be a difficult day.

Plus I have a few nagging doubts about the morality of the day.

Let me share some of my thoughts.

I have always given a cautious welcome to the Champions Day, certainly staging it at Ascot rather than Newmarket is an inspired choice. Ascot is an ideal venue in terms of facilities, location, configuration and viewing. One suggestion I would make regarding the venue for Champions Day, should it be an on-going feature, would be to consider alternating it between Ascot and York.

My main concern about Champions Day was the potential negative impact it could have on Longchamp’s Arc meeting. It could be argued some of the Group races at Longchamp this year did not have their usual strength in depth, although it is dangerous to make a judgement on the evidence of just one year.

Having seen how the day itself is being organised I have some more nagging doubts.

First of all there is the racecourse presentation which is being headed by ATR’s Matt Chapman and also includes somebody called Amanda Davies and trainer Robert Cowell.

Matt Chapman is quoted as saying, "the on track team see it as their mission to enhance the experience of regular racegoers while engaging and enlightening those less familiar with a truly great sport" – what wonderful marketing speak straight from the RfC Bible.

With an audience consisting of both hardened, experienced racegoers and newcomers that aspiration is going to be very difficult to achieve without the real risk of alienating significant sections of the audience.

In my experience regular racegoers do not want to be bombarded with constant chatter and what they consider “irrelevant” talk over the PA.

There has been a proliferation of this sort of presentation in recent years and it is questionable if it is always for the betterment of the raceday experience. I think it works better at the more family oriented meetings, not at the showcase meetings.

Some racecourses have handled this better than others. The ones who have got it right only have the presentation broadcast in certain parts of the course, thus giving racegoers the option to either opt-in or opt-out of listening to it.

Hopefully Ascot will do the same on Champions Day.

As with the art of television commentary – less is best.

The presentation team composition is also very interesting.

I have already upset Matt Chapman in a previous epistle and I have no desire to further fan the flames today. Matt, however, is very much a Marmite™ character as far as followers of the sport are concerned and the organisers are taking a calculated gamble in using him as opposed to what could be considered a “safer” pair of hands.

Having said that, Matt is also, possibly, the one person who could actually pull this whole thing off – and this may come as a surprise - I genuinely hope he does.

As for Amanda Davies I must admit I hadn’t a clue who she is until I looked her up. It seems she is the daughter of David Davies, former BBC presenter and FA bod, and she apparently presents the sports news on the BBC News Channel. I am not aware of her having any racing pedigree and one assumes she is being wheeled out at the “token” female.

Her selection seems somewhat unfair on the, presumably more knowledgeable, females presenters who already work in racing. Is the suggestion none of these are good / pretty enough?

Regarding Robert Cowell having never seen him in action I have no idea how suitable he is as a presenter / pundit but, again, I am surprised at the inclusion of a relative unknown in the line-up.

Time will ultimately tell and I am more than happy for my scepticism to be proven unfounded but is this really the best presentation line-up that could have been produced?

Another problem for me will be working at Champions Day.

Put simply the racing press corps can be divided into two camps, those of us who go racing most days at tracks, big and small, around the country and those who only turn up for the big meetings.

Although there are some notable exceptions, who do appear at the smaller courses day-in and day-out, most the correspondents for “The Nationals” tend to fall into the latter camp.

These are the ones who would not be seen dead at Fakenham on a wet Tuesday afternoon in November, assuming they even know where Fakenham is.

Yet they are the ones who invariably turn up at the all major meetings and then strut around the press room as if they own the place. Woe betide anybody who dares sit in “their seat” - even if they have not bothered using it the previous eight minor meetings at the course.

They are the ones who will bark at some poor employee of the racecourse “do you know who I am?” when they are faced with something that doesn’t quite go their way.

There is little more stressful than a press room full of egos.

The “morality” question stems from the financing of the day. Racing is pleading poverty, complaining about lack of money with the consequent result of ever decreasing prize money, leading to (selective) tariffs and protests. Yet racing is somehow able to stage a single days racing with prize money in excess of £3m.

OK a large amount of this money is coming from sponsorship and from Ascot but does it not sent out a confusing message about the state of racing?

Can such a huge amount of prize money be considered right in these austere times?

Does such huge prize money for six races just not enforce the generally held prejudice that racing is simply a rich man’s game?

It is akin to me complaining to all and sundry, making a really big deal of the matter, that my financial situation is such I could only afford to eat supermarket value range food. Only to then take my friends out to dine at The Fat Duck at £180 a head.

So do I really want to spend the day working in a press room rammed full of egos, fighting for desk space, at a meeting which may well become a vaudeville show and where the prize money is arguably obscene?

Or do I want to go to Cheltenham where it will be much more sane?

Do I want to watch top draw races and the culmination of the flat racing season?

Or do I want to go to Cheltenham for what is, in effect, a low key meeting for the course?

Interestingly a number of my “day to day” racing colleagues have said they will be going to Cheltenham instead of Ascot – maybe the press room at Cheltenham will be busier than many expect.

As for me, I have not decided yet and I am still open to persuasion either way, although my car is currently parked facing west rather than south.

Weights, Drugs, Booze and Wrong Calls

2011-10-04T11:09:00.001+01:00

There is so much to write about in what has been an eventful week.

There is one story which almost slipped through the net last Thursday and that concerns an appeal by Kieren Fox in relation to a four day ban he received for weighing in 1½lbs light at a Kempton meeting on 19^th September.

Custom and practice has dictated the jockey and the jockey alone is responsible for ensuring he carries the correct weight throughout the race. Yet, as soon as he weighs out the jockey hands his saddle to the trainer or head lad so the horse can be saddled. He will not see the saddle again until he sees the horse in the parade ring.

Aided by his very eloquent boss, John Best, the appeal panel found in Fox’s favour stating, “that there was not motive, opportunity nor evidence that Kieren Fox was responsible for the loss of 1½lb lead which was found to be missing on weighing in.”

It is a very wise and sensible decision . . . how can a jockey be held responsible when the saddle is out of his direct control?

Let me say there is absolutely no question of nefarious goings on in this case and the likelihood is the weight accidentally dropped out of the saddle cloth as it was being carried from the weighing room to the saddling area.

However this decision of the disciplinary panel must result in a change to presumption that the jockey is presumed responsible, even when the saddle is out of his control.

If not the only solution I can see is the jockey is made to carry the saddle to the saddling area himself and he watches the saddling process himself, somehow I cannot see the likes of Fallon and Dettori doing that.

When I fly, for example, I am quite happy to accept responsibility for what is in my baggage up until the point I check it in. Thereafter I would not expect to be held responsible for anything added or taken from my bag.

It was a busy day for the disciplinary panel last Thursday as also before them were Jack Mitchell and Franny Norton.

Jack Mitchell was before the panel for having traces of benzoylecgonine, a diagnostic metabolite of cocaine and a banned substance in his urine. In other words it indicated he had taken some cocaine in the previous 48 hours. To his credit Mitchell admitted the offence and was very contrite in his submission to the panel.

Norton was appearing before the panel after he failed a breath test for alcohol at Chester in May, indeed the alcohol reading was at a level higher than the allowed limit for driving.

Mitchell was banned for six months, Norton for 40 days.

Both bans are perverse and wrong.

Yes Mitchell was stupid and I am in no way condoning the taking of illegal drugs and what he did was wrong. Yes there were traces of benzoylecgonine in his urine but the actual taking of the cocaine may well have been 48 hours earlier so his ability to ride would not have been impaired that greatly, if at all. Yes he needs to be punished but a six month ban is excessive. If Mitchell’s assertion that this was a one off is accepted, and there is no reason to doubt what he said, then a shorter ban plus attendance at a drug rehabilitation program at his own expense should be sufficient deterrent.

Jack Mitchell

Mitchell is young and youngsters make mistakes, draconian punishments for such mistakes are excessive. To deny somebody of their livelihood for six months for using seems harsh. Firstly when you consider the police, automatically give a caution for a first offence.

Secondly the dealers, who are far more culpable than the users, receive an average sentence of 3 years 3 months and a £167 fine (of course that means they will 19 months in reality).

Turning to Norton he was about to ride a horse whilst over the permitted limit for alcohol – in other words he was drunk. He judgement must have been impaired and he was potentially a danger to himself, his mounts and to other riders. Especially at a tight turning course like Chester.

Yet he was handed a ban of forty days.

I’m sorry but I consider turning up at a racecourse drunk, potentially endangering other riders to be far more serious than Mitchell’s offence.

Norton does not even have the excuse of youth, he is 41 years old and should know better.

Whilst some mitigation factors can be made for Mitchell, none can be made for Norton.

As a footnote it is worth noting Norton was found guilty of having benzoylecgonine in his urine in 2003 and he only received a four month ban.

Finally the normally dependable Stewart Machin made an uncharacteristic mistake when calling the wrong winner at Warwick on Monday afternoon, Mistaking Rio’s Girl for the very similarly coloured Straboe. I was at Warwick and I can say the professional man that he is Stewart was absolutely shocked and devastated at the mistake he made.

The press room can be the cruellest place at times but even the most cynical hacks, and there were some at Warwick yesterday, were so taken aback at Stewart’s reaction that all offered him words of encouragement and not the extreme micky taking I’m sure he was expecting. The reaction from the guys in the press room indicates the respect we have for Stewart’s commentating.

Of course there was the inevitable verbal diarrhoea being spouted on Betfair, although to be fair it wasn’t as bad as it can be when we get the race mistakes from commentators.

Apparently one punter lost some £38k on Rio’s Girl based of Stewart’s call and many posters were rallying to that punters cause.

Sorry I have no sympathy for the punter at all, indeed I would actually go as far as to say he actually deserves to lose the money.

No commentator, no matter how good he is, is infallible and to rely on a third party when risking such sums of money is insanely stupid.

Also is there not a perverse contradiction here. Stewart is being criticised for mis-identifying two horses, yet the defenders of the punter are not criticising him, yet he too clearly failed to identify the two horses.

No wonder the Betfair forum is considered such a joke.

Whipping Up A Good Report

2011-09-27T11:03:00.000+01:00

There have been occasions when I have been critical of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) so let me begin by giving credit where credit is due.

The long awaited review into the use of the whip has been published and reading through the 78 pages it is clear the committee have carried out a thorough and balanced review and full credit to all those involved.

Before we go any further let me give my position on the whip. I am, instinctively, one of those who does not like seeing a horse being whipped.

Having said that, I have only sat on a horse once in my entire life and that concluded with me flying over the top of his head. I therefore accept the views of those who do ride horses that the whip is a necessary part of the sport, so I obviously have to accept the view of those who know better than me.

It is also clear, as the report pointed out, the current whip guidelines are ineffectual, ambiguous and frankly the punishments are no deterrent to errant jockeys.

What has been proposed are clear guidelines namely no more than seven hits with the whip in a flat race and no more than eight in a jump race, with no more than five strikes after the final fence / final furlong.

The caution for misuse has been withdrawn and an entry point of five days has been introduced. Also any rider picking up a ban of three or more days will have his riding fee / % payment taken away.

Penalties will be doubled for a second offence in a rolling twelve month period.

The rule changes certainly look to be less ambiguous and the penalties are certainly more effective but do they go far enough?

Take, for example, the upcoming Champions Day races. With such massive purses on offer most jockeys will make every effort to win the race including easily exceeding the new whip rules. If a jockey is a retained rider is he going to jeopardise a lucrative retainer by restricting his whip use and possibly losing the race?

The value of the retainer is worth a lot more than his riding fee and win percentage.

Anyway most owners would, in the circumstances, make sure the rider does not lose out as a result.

Now the BHA have thought of that one and introduced a rule banning owners from recompensing, either directly or indirectly, jockeys who are fined and lose their payments.

All very good but wholly unworkable and unenforceable – any owner or jockey with a half decent accountant will be able to find a way to get round that rule without being caught.

Indeed any owner who does fall foul of that new regulation deserves to be fined and banned, not for committing the offence but for being stupid enough to get caught.

The committee came out against withholding prize money for owners and trainer or for disqualifying the horse.

Part of the argument against this seemed to be that owners, trainers and punters were “innocent” parties and should not be adversely impacted.

I would fundamentally disagree with that stance.

The jockey is employed by the owner and trainer and it is, ultimately, their responsibility to ensure the jockey adheres by the rules. Most of the big owners are businessmen and they work within the realms of corporate governance where the employer is ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees, this is no different. I would want to see the owners and trainers percentages retained as well – that would certainly encourage them to ensure their jockey rides within the rules.

In terms of fairness to punters, let’s turn that one around. A horse wins a race by a nose with the jockey on the winner having exceeded the whip regulations.

Is it fair backers of the winner win because the jockey on their horse broke the rules?

Is it fair on backers of the runner-up, whose jockey abided by the rules, that they are denied a win?

There are already offences whereby a horse can be disqualified, should abuse of the whip be any different?

I do also wonder if the eight hit restriction will be workable in NH racing. Does this mean we will see more horses left at the start because a rider does not want to risk using his quota of hits to get the horse to run?

What about horses who require encouragement to jump or change a stride coming to a fence – does that mean after eight fences they will have to pull up?

Will the same five hit after the last restriction apply equally to Cartmel (over half a mile) and to Towcester (110 yards)?

Is it right to have just one more hit allowed for a three and a half mile chase than for a five furlong sprint?

The response from the BHA is jockeys agree with the eight strike limit. Have they really? Have they really though through what it means?

I have a feeling we are going to see quite a few NH jockeys before the Stewards in the coming months.

But back to the main thrust of the report.

Yes there are plenty of questions but the recommendations are a massive step in the right direction.

Time will tell as to just how successful the new changes are.

Let’s give them a go and see how they work.

Goodnight Ginger, Rest Well

2011-09-20T12:45:00.000+01:00

As any regular readers will probably have noted, some weeks it is difficult to find something new or fresh to write about, whilst other weeks the topic hits you between the eyes and this is one such week.

The only topic worthy of any discussion is the passing of “Mr Aintree” Ginger McCain.

Of course in certain quarters there has been too much hyperbole. I have seen his death described by more than one person as tragic. Whilst his passing is certainly sad it is by no means tragic. He had, as they say, a good innings and he passed away in his sleep after a mercifully short illness, just three days short of his 81^st birthday.

It is strange but had it not been for Red Rum then, in all likelihood, McCain’s passing would probably have only warranted a paragraph or two in the Racing Post and it would not even have received a mention in the non-industry press.

But, of course, McCain was associated with the greatest horse in the history of the Grand National, indeed one of the best known horses in the history of the sport.

His record in the Grand National is unequalled, ran five, won three, second two. Think about it that is 22½ miles round Aintree jumping 150 of the Aintree fences and don’t forget the fences back in the 1970’s were even more daunting than they were now.

It has to be remembered that Red Rum was considered by many to be the villain when he won his first National. Beating the long time leader Crisp in the closing stages. A race often replayed and even 38 years later most of those watching the race again are willing Crisp over the line in front.

But it wasn’t to be and the rest, as they say, is history.

Of course McCain’s affection in the hearts and minds of the public was helped by the fact he wasn’t a big trainer with huge stables and a massive fortune in his own right.

He trained in a stables behind his car showroom in Southport, indeed he also had to “moonlight” as a taxi driver to help make ends meet. He had no purpose built gallops but he did have the natural all-weather gallops of Southport beach and it was on this beach he famously trained the great Rummy.

When he purchased Red Rum for owner Noel Le Mare he was found to be lame, Red Rum that is not Le Mare. However after an hour paddling in the sea the horse was sound, McCain believes due the minerals found in the sea water.

McCain was a blunt speaking Northerner and he believes that is why owners were not queuing up to send runner to him. As he admitted himself, “I wasn’t any good at kissing bottoms or bullshit.”

He was a man who spoke his mind and he didn’t mind being controversial although as is often the case some of the more controversial comments were made to provoke a reaction.

As he often admitted he loved baiting journalists, especially those who had not done their homework.

One of his more controversial outbursts surrounded the participation of Carrie Ford in the 2005 Grand National where he made an outspoken outburst about her participation in the race and that he would bare his buttocks if Ford ran.

Probably the most controversial comment he made at the time was “Carrie is a fine lass but she’s a broodmare now and having kids does not get you fit to ride Grand Nationals.”

The “spat” bought priceless publicity for the race and on the day, even though she did not win, Ford had the last laugh by finishing fifth on Forrest Gunner, beating McCain’s Amberleigh House who only finished tenth.

What most did not realise, however, is the Fords were, indeed are, great family friends of the McCain’s and the spat was actually set up to generate extra publicity and add extra spice to the 2005 contest.

Of course Amberleigh House was also the horse that demonstrated McCain was not a one trick trainer in terms of the Grand Nation as he provided him with his fourth win in the race in 2004.

Following his retirement in 2007 his son Donald Jnr took up the training licence and went on to prove that McCain could not only train Grand National winning horses he could also sire a Grand National winning trainer as well.

Although he would never admit such a thing publicly, I have little doubt that McCain senior had as much pride and sense of achievement when young Donald trained Ballabriggs to win the 2011 Grand National as he ever did with any of Red Rum’s victories.

The term “character” is bandied about all too frequently and is often used in a derogatory sense.

With McCain it is true to say he was a character in every positive sense of the word. He was the sort of man we British love, the underdog going on to achieve great achievements, seemingly against all the odds.

A man not afraid to speak his mind, not afraid to court controversy but at the same time a man not afraid to stick his tongue firmly in his cheek – indeed a wind-up merchant of the first order.

For him political correctness was an anathema, although he would undoubtedly have stated that point far more strongly.

Despite the bluntness McCain was also self-depreciating never taking himself too seriously – well most of the time not.

He did care very deeply about Aintree and especially his beloved Grand National.

He was deeply scornful of the changes which he viewed as emasculating the race – he famously said “they don’t cut 10,000 feet of the top of Everest to make it easier.”

He despised All Weather racing, calling it “an abomination” - so he cannot be all bad

When he was once described as a legend he retorted, “I’m no legend – I trained a legend”

Racing has lost one of its enduring and, yes, endearing characters. Aintree and Grand National day will never quite be the same. However racings loss pales into insignificance when you consider the loss to the McCain family – who have lost a husband, father and grandfather. A man who will be sadly missed but who will live on in their memories.

It’s up to Aintree now to ensure McCain is honoured appropriately. Somehow the John Smith’s Ginger McCain Grand National Steeplechase does have a certain ring to it.

I will leave the final words to McCain who said, “I wouldn’t want to become a doddery, slobbering, incontinent old man” – luckily for us all he did not and we can remember him for the great, once in a lifetime, character he was.

Goodnight Ginger, rest well.

A Bittar Sweet Appointment

2011-09-14T11:01:00.000+01:00

So the white smoke appears above High Holborn and a new British Horseracing Authority (BHA) Chief Executive is announced as the job goes to 41 year old Australian Paul Bittar.

Apparently Bittar was one of forty candidates to be considered for the role and looking at his pedigree he seems as suitable a candidate as many.

Being called Paul is obviously a big advantage, as a number of senior members of the BHA seem to share that illustrious forename. Indeed I am, in one way, surprised that being called Paul I have not been approached myself. On the other hand the reason for the lack of call is also obvious as towing a party line has never been a strong point of mine and frankly they would not be able to afford me anyway.

The press release from the BHA announcing Bittar’s appointment also included ringing endorsements from BHA Chairman Paul Roy and Horsemen’s Group chairman Paul Dixon (note the forenames again).

If I were Bittar I would find such endorsements a concern as neither Roy or Dixon have a good track record of sound decision making.

Indeed I would even question why anybody would want to take on the role of Chief Exec of the BHA as the role now stands. What exactly are they heading?

The word Authority in the BHA’s title is a misnomer, they seem to have little real authority over a sport which is noted more for factionalism than any coherent authority.

You only have to look at the press release later in the same day as the Bittar appointment to see how much “authority” the BHA has. For the latest pronouncement says the 2012 fixture list announcement, originally scheduled for July before being delayed until the end of September, will not now be made until October.

Is this delay due to a much needed radical reduction to the fixture list, apparently not – all they are looking at is an insignificant reduction of around 80 fixtures.

Dai Walters, who owns Ffos Las has, unhelpfully, thrown his hat into the ring threatening to close the course if their fixture allocation is drastically reduced.

Let me say I like Ffos Las as a course but I have to say Walters intervention is akin to a truculent schoolchild threatening to pick up his ball and go home because things do not go his way.

Walters seems to forget that in terms of fixture allocations Ffos Las has been on the receiving end of some very positive discrimination in terms of fixtures allocated to his course. It strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous to now begin complaining when some of those special privileges, not available to other course, are taken away.

I digress, so why is there another delay, because the BHA’s “stakeholders” (to use that terrible, meaningless, marketing phrase) i.e. The Racecourse Association and The Horsemen’s Group seem unable to organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery when it comes down to sorting out a fixture list. They are allowing their own selfish self-interest to override the greater good of the sport.

As in the case of the Levy “negotiations” and the recently published annual report of the Levy Board makes for interesting reading, “racing” is unable to come up with a united view of what is best for the sport.

If any other business was, and I use the term loosely, organised in the same way as British Horseracing then it would deservedly go bust.

Whilst I wish Bittar well in his new role, he is walking into an impossible job and he is taking on a poisoned chalice. No matter how good he is, until racing is united, until it moves away from its factional infighting, it is a sport on the slippery slope to oblivion and no amount of tinkering with current job holders is going to stop the decline.

A Tarnished Legend

2011-09-07T09:31:00.000+01:00

One of the “feature” races on the opening day of the Doncaster St Leger Festival is the Clipper Logistics Leger Legends Classified Stakes, which features a host of former jockeys and indeed some racing legends.

This years renewal sees the return to the saddle of Ray Cochrane, who stopped race riding after surviving the 2000 plane crash in which he saved the life of fellow jockey Frankie Dettori.

The race also features Julie Krone, arguably the greatest female jockey ever.

However there is one name in the list of riders which should send a shiver down the spine of any true supporter of the sport – Graham Bradley.

Granted Bradley could be called a legend in the sport but for all the wrong reasons. If you are not aware Bradley was banned from the sport for five years for passing “inside information” to a third party for reward. If that was not bad enough, the man to whom the information was passed was one Brian Brendan Wright, currently spending 30 years as a guest of Her Majesty, having been described in court as “Britain’s most successful cocaine dealer in the 1990’s”

Lest anybody think Bradley’s five year ban was the result of a single misguided act this was not the first time he had crossed the racing authorities.

In 1982, early in his riding career, Bradley was suspended for two months for betting – something jockeys are not supposed to do. It is an indication of his arrogance, stupidity or both that the bet was not struck quietly, using a discreet third party. No it was actually struck in the betting ring at a meeting where he was riding.

In 1987 he was banned for three months for not making sufficient effort on a ride at Market Rasen.

Of course in order for Bradley to be able to tide again he has shown contrition for his sins.

Has he hell . . . . . his autobiography The Wayward Lad is a pathetic attempt at self-justification from a man who appears to have no moral compass and seems to be suffering from a delusional paranoia that everyone is out to get him. It is a book in which he shows no contrition.

It is questionable that Bradley should ever be allowed anywhere near a racecourse again – that he is actually being allowed to compete in a race, in such esteemed company, is nothing short of a disgrace.

Whoever considered inviting him to ride in this race, whoever granted him a licence to compete in the race should be looking for new jobs.

I have to confess this is my least favourite time of the year in terms of racing. The jumping season proper is still a few weeks off and the flat season is beginning to wind down. It is the time of year when the “no hopers” make their racecourse appearances in attempt to win some money to pay for their winter corn.

It is the time of year where we have a glut of large field maidens, where the challenge for the punter is not to find the best horse in the field but to try and identify the least worse yak in the field.

In other words it is the time of year when the bookmakers are rubbing their hands with delight as they collect the money to pay for their winter holidays.

This week I received the latest Injured Jockeys Fund (IJF) newsletter and there was a most heartening picture on the front cover – Peter O’Toole sitting at home with his parents. A photograph many feared would never be seen in the aftermath of his terrible fall at Aintree back in April. This year seems to have been particularly bad in terms of jockeys sustaining career threatening injuries.

The IJF does a fantastic job supporting not only jockeys but stable staff who are injured or need help following accidents which potentially threaten their livelihoods.

As Christmas approaches may I commend the range of cards, calendars and gifts available from the IJF and urge you to visit their website to help support their work.

www.injuredjockeys.co.uk

Racing Smiles

2011-08-30T09:27:00.000+01:00

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

2011-08-22T11:38:00.000+01:00

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.