A Question Of Time

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?

A Champion Days Racing

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

Do I, Don't I?

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.

Sublime Cartmel and Rod Street

By all logical measures I should abhor Cartmel racecourse.

Set in the middle of nowhere, accessible only by single track country roads and with awful viewing of the racing it seemingly has little going for it. Certainly if Cartmel racecourse did not already exist and it applied to a licence to operate it would quickly be shown the door by the BHA – for heaven’s sake it still has dry stone walls along the edge of the track?

Yet Cartmel is a course I adore and one, all being well, I will visit again and again for many years to come.

With years of practice the “issues” have been addressed. There is an effective one-way traffic management system in place which means you will not meet oncoming traffic in the country lanes. Indeed, even after racing, the system is so efficient you will be very unlucky to encounter any traffic issues when leaving.

Yes viewing is poor but, probably uniquely at any British racecourse, punters line the rails of the entire course and are able to get close to the action. Many arrive early just to be able to park-up by the running rails. There is always the big screen and Iain MacKenzie, who commentates at most Cartmel meetings, does adjust his commentating style to provide a more descriptive account of what is happening.

However Cartmel has that certain something extra. The setting is sublime, set in a lovely village. The local village store, renowned for their Cartmel Sticky Toffee Puddings (although I prefer the Sticky Ginger Pudding), also have the ideal supplies for the picnic lunches and barbecues which predominate at the course.

Indeed at last week’s meeting there was even a prize for the best barbecue.

The atmosphere is magical, very informal, no airs and graces, like a super point-to-point meeting. The staff are friendly, you get the impression the entire population of the village (apart from those working in the shop and pubs) are at the racecourse to make your day all the more enjoyable.

You won’t find many fearsome jobsworth’s at Cartmel, indeed what looks like organised chaos is actually a very well run, efficient operation.

Last Thursday I bumped into ATR’s Robert Cooper, making his first ever visit to the track. His reaction to the place “I’m smitten” and that is the reaction of most who visit this Cumbrian idyll.

From a working perspective it is not the easiest course, race reading has to be done from the television and the Press Room serves as the Groundsman’s hideaway the remainder of the year and on a hot sunny day it is like the black hole of Calcutta – but you know what I don’t care one little bit.

If you have never been to Cartmel you will not realise what you are missing out on – visit once and I am quite certain that, like me, you will want to return again and again and again. I also have a strong feeling I shall be bumping into Robert Cooper there some time in the future as well.

I have given Rod Street of Racing For Change (RfC) a great deal of stick over the past year or so about some of the initiatives from RfC. However it is only right to give credit where credit is due.

Rod recently took questions from members of The Racing Forum and the frank and full answers he gave to the questions, most of which were critical of Rod and RfC, were most enlightening and I must admit the respect I have for Rod increased dramatically from what I read.

(A link to the Q&A session can be found at the bottom of this page)

Indeed he has almost won me round to what RfC is doing, it has certainly giving me a greater insight into the aims of RfC – it may not go amiss if RfC were to include some of the Q&A’s in their next news sheet.

OK I still have some doubts.

I still believe they were very lucky the semi-finals of The Filly Factor did not go pear shape (by the way the final is at Ascot this coming Sunday).

I also have reservations about Champions Day, although not for the reasons given by many.

I have no problems with the meeting moving from Newmarket to Ascot as Ascot is far better able to stage such a big meeting.

My two main concerns are around what seems to be the excessive level of prize money, which seems hard to justify in the current climate.

My biggest concern, however, is the impact on the meeting that already exists and serves the function of the perfect end to the season – namely Longchamp’s Arc meeting.

For me that meeting is the climax to the European Flat season. With the Sunday seeing six Group One races over most of the main distances, culminating in the Arc itself. It would be a crying shame if the proposed new Champions Day took any of the quality or glamour away from Longchamp.

Here is the link to the Q&A session on The Racing Forum     Rod Street Q&A            

An Open Letter To Rod Street

Dear Rod,

I am writing this letter to ask you to reconsider the format of the semi-finals of The Filly Factor and, in the process, avoid a potentially embarrassing situation.

Now if I am not mistaken the aim of The Filly Factor is to try and find a female commentator to break into what is exclusively a male domain and to also promote the cause of women in a male dominated arena.

Whilst there may be debate in some quarters concerning the suitability of the timbre of some women’s voices, that does not concern me here. The aims are laudable and there is no reason why there should be a female commentator, so long as the criteria for selection is to the same exacting criteria currently used for male commentators.

My genuine concern is this weekend’s semi-finals, as they are currently proposed, will not only undermine what is being set out to be achieved, it will actually set back the cause of female commentators.

I was at Newbury races yesterday afternoon when three of the semi-finalists were having a training day. As part of the day they were allowed to share the commentary of a charity race at the end of the card. Now I do not normally remain behind for such novelty races but yesterday I made an exception.

To be brutally frank the efforts of all three were embarrassing and cringe worthy. 

One of the three is an experienced broadcaster and even she was struggling to identify runners in an eight runner race.

Now I am not criticising the ladies taking part, they are all doing their best but commentating on a horse race is not a skill acquired overnight, It takes plenty of time and practice, not a couple of afternoons watching a professional commentator.

Yet these ladies are being asked to provide a racecourse commentary, in public, this weekend when they clearly are not ready for it. These brave ladies run the risk of humiliation and embarrassment, through no fault of their own, for the sake of a competition.

By all means go ahead with the semi-finals but with their commentaries being kept on a closed loop, rather than being broadcast over the PA on course. That way, should any of the ladies freeze or make errors they will not be exposed to public scrutiny, humiliation or ridicule. The two winners can then undergo some intense training before the final in July and the final in July should only go ahead if the finalists are of sufficient quality.

They are not even being helped by the venues. At Bath there is no second commentary position and even yesterday afternoon there were negotiations in progress to try and find a suitable commentary position for the finalists. In the case of Doncaster it is known to be a very difficult course from a commentary perspective and couple that with the usual large fields it again puts additional, unnecessary, pressure on the participants.

I appreciate I have only heard three of the eight in action but is is worrying the three I have heard are the ones considered to be the front runners.

Also has anybody considered the public reaction to these commentaries? Top price tickets at Doncaster on Sunday are £32. How would you feel, if having paid that amount of money,  you then had to listen to a “commentary” which was not fluent and from which it would be very difficult to actually follow what is happening – if it were me I would  be demanding my money back.  

For everyones sake please reconsider what is planned this weekend.

Regards

Paul

Rod Street has responded to my letter and it can be found at  http://bit.ly/hMiuJ9

Bans, Commentators and Colours

There may have been many sharp intakes of breath when it was announced that Peterjon Carberry had been handed a 40 day ban by the BHH for dropping his hands and losing first and second place on Monty’s Moon at Uttoxeter at the end of April.

Before I go any further allow me to declare an interest and state I had backed Montys Moon to win the race and it really was my getting out stakes following a bad afternoon. However I would have written the same had I not had an investment on the day.

Many say the ban is too long, I happen to think the ban was spot on.

The apologists will say he is young, he made a mistake and everybody mistakes and, to a point I agree, yes everybody does make mistakes. Most people, however, learn from their mistakes.

In the days when I had people working for me I was very pragmatic when people made mistakes, I may have expressed disappointment if I thought the mistake was a silly, avoidable one but I certainly wouldn’t go into one.

The only time I ever did “go into one” as it were was if somebody repeated the same, avoidable, mistake and that is precisely what Carberry has done.

Least anybody forget the reason Carberry was referred to the BHA in the first place was this was his second offence in 12 months. He had failed to ride out a finish at Sandown last November, an offence for which he picked up a ten day ban.

Clearly he has not learned from that mistake so he clearly needs a stronger punishment to focus the mind, as it were, hopefully the 40 days will fully focus his mind

It also needs to be remembered this was his first ride at Uttoxeter. There are some who offer this up as a mitigating factor, I would argue the opposite. If a jockey is riding a course for the first time surely it is incumbent upon him to walk the course, note the characteristics and know where the finishing line. It is palpably clear Carberry did not do this otherwise he would have seen the course marker which he mistook for the winning post.

- - - - - - -

Racing For Change has been something of a curates egg, good in places. Some of their simple changes, like large number cloths, free race days have been a success.

Some of their grander ideas have been very credible in their concept, although at times it could be argued the actual execution could be better. The Champion’s Series and Champions Day are two of the most blindingly obvious  examples.

Both are theoretically good ideas but are at risk of being undermined due to poor execution. The Champions Series is now underway but you would not think so.

There have been some excellent videos made to accompany the series but when shown, without introduction, on racecourse big screens and CCTV they have been ignored.

There is also a brilliant video about Frankel – but where is it being shown. On the racing channels – is that not preaching to the converted? Should that video not be pushed in non-racing TV programs, even paying for it to be shown as a TV advertisement.

I have similar worries about Champions Day . . . as a concept it is great, my only concern is its proximity to the Arc weekend at Longchamp may well dilute, what for me, is already the best weekends racing in Europe throughout the year.

I am also interested and concerned as to how Champions Day will be marketed to attract a wider audience – watch this space.

Amongst the better ideas from RfC there are also some idiotic ideas and two are running currently.

The first is The Filly Factor, setting out with the aim of finding a female racing commentator – the politest way of describing it is patronising and offensive.

It is patronising to women in that it assumes there is some untapped wealth of potential female commentators out there already. I don’t believe there is. There is currently nothing preventing a female to apply to be a commentator, yet Racetech who source the commentators have said they have never even received a test tape from a female.

When I mentioned this matter elsewhere somebody commentated “women will not apply because they feel it is a mans world and they feel intimidated.”

Sorry that is absolute tosh, if a woman really wanted to break into the world of commentary then she would fight to get the role – if they could be put off that easily I would actually question their desire to do the job in the first place.

Certainly the men currently on the rosta have had to fight hard to get there and to reach the exacting standards  required. Last year there were three “trainees” who wanted to be commentators – only one of the three made it and one of the two who didn’t make it is, in my opinion very good.

The competition is also offensive in that it makes light of what a difficult job racing commentary is. To bring it down to the X-Factor level is totally wrong. The existing commentators, with one (possibly two) exceptions are all excellent and near faultless in their work.

To have a competition which turns commentary into a gimmick is wrong.

The only good thing to come out of the competition is it will show just how good the commentators we already have are. If you think I am mistaken have a look at the entries so far.

None are anywhere near the standard which would be acceptable on a racecourse and bear in mind the entrants have had a chance to preview the race and to practice – if they cannot produce a polished performance having seen the race and having had the chance to practice then how can they be expected to produce a polished performance “live”.

Now I am not criticising the ladies who have entered, who can blame them for attempting to bag a £2,500 first prize. The blame should sit fairly and squarely with the organisers who are devaluing a very difficult job.

I began this musing talking about not learning from mistakes and it links in with my next observation.

One of the most stupid ideas in racing in not only the last year but arguably in my lifetime was the introduction of team colours for last year’s Shergar Cup. Not only were the designs too similar even the colours, especially the blue and green, were almost impossible to differentiate in the murk on the round course.

When the colours were introduced was there any discussion with commentators or race readers. You will not a lack of question mar there as it is a rhetorical question – of course there wasn’t.

Tinkering with colours is a no-no.Colours need to be clear, concise and unambiguous and the current system, with its limited range of designs and shapes actually works very well.

Ask any commentator how they cope with big fields and they will tell you it is because they know the colours which have become familiar to them over the years and they can quickly associate them with owners and colours.

So what do our friend at RfC do – they have a competition to let art students design new sets of colours. There is nothing in the rules of the competition which stipulate designs have to be restricted to the standard shapes and designs.

The result some certainly very arty but actually wholly impractical sets of colours – there was even one set which looked like a Donald Duck – can you picture Fallon or McCoy in those colours?

So I have one final suggestion for RfC why not have the winning colours used in just one race – why not the race that is called by the winner of The Filly Factor – somehow the winner of that competition calling home a winning rider dressed as Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse seems most appropriate.