The Good Old Days?

It is strange how your perceptions change as you grow older.

I am of an age where I can clearly remember the “winter of ’63” a winter where, for a primary school child life was bliss – it snowed on Boxing Day and the snow remained for almost three months.

I didn’t care a jot that we had no running water due to frozen pipes, in fact queuing at the water bowser with my parents was part of the adventure.

I also recall us becoming very popular with the neighbours as, later in the freeze, we were the first house in our road to actually have the water company come out and thaw our pipes – the reason being my mother was expecting my sister at the time.

I had to say having a sister was a disappointment – I wanted a puppy instead.

However the best part was playing out in the snow day after day. For adults it was probably three months of hell, for me it was three months of sheer delight.

Now roll the clock forward 47 years.

On the television we see children enjoying the snowfall, yet instead of feeling happy for them as they experience the delight I did all those years ago, my reaction is to snarl and revert to Victor Meldrew mode.

Whilst the snow may be fun to play in it is no fun whatsoever to drive in – even more importantly it has led to the decimation of turf racing. Indeed the snow has been so bad it has even led to the curtailment of some, so called, all weather race meetings.

Speaking of which when are we going to get rid of the wholly inappropriate “all weather” description, let’s just call it artificial surface racing.

I am one of those who blithely says I can get by without racing – you know what I can’t. I have been going stir crazy these past few weeks.

It became so bad I actually looked forward to going to an artificial surface meeting.

I have to say at this point that I have been very impressed with the racing authorities in the way they have handled the recent bad weather. From being an intransigent, inflexible beast a few years ago the authorities have been both reactive, proactive and, dare I say, innovative.

Last weeks all-bumper card at Southwell would never have even been considered previously. In the end it attracted good field, although small crowds. However the crowds may have been reduced by the bad weather – I tried to attend the meeting but had to turn back home after “progressing” a mile in the first hour.

Even when the snow cleared we were still kept on tenterhooks.

My racing of choice last Saturday, Huntingdon, had to survive a couple of inspections. Nothing to do with the snow but a thread of flooding from the nearby brook, the level of which was slowly rising.

This week should have been a return to normal and it started OK.

Yesterday was a turf meeting at Southwell, although as I drove through some dense fog patches near the course I did wonder if the weather was going to thwart me again.

Today the weather Gods have conspired to bite me on the bum yet again. All ready to go to Newbury, I checked early and the reports were it was raining.

By the time I emerged from the shower they had announced it was snowing and they were going to inspect at 9:00.

Sure enough racing was abandoned by 9:25 – another meeting bites the dust.

Please – no more snow – it looks pretty but it really is disrupting my life.

On the subject of life being disrupted, it has been bought home to me this last week just how much we do take things for granted.

As you will have gathered from my earlier comments I am no spring chicken and have been round the block a few times.

I can vaguely remember the very early days of cash machines where you were given a card by the bank which you could insert in a machine in return for an envelope of ten £1 notes, the card was retained after use.

Nowadays we take ATM’s and debit cards for granted. I know I rarely use cash any more, until this last week.

My debit card runs out the end of this month and normally my bank is usually very good at sending out new cards, usually about eight weeks before they run out.

So when I had not received my new card by the beginning of last week I rang them up. After going through seemingly endless phone options, then security checks, I finally managed to speak to a human who confirmed my new card had been processed on the 4th December.

We I had not received it.

No problem she says, I will cancel the card and order you a new one, which will arrive within the next ten working days.

Later that day I went to my local cash and carry, which only accepts debit cards and cash, no credit cards.

I went to pay for my goods with my debit card to be faced with the dreaded words “card declined” – I was saved further embarrassment by having sufficient cash on me to pay for the goods.

My immediate reaction was somebody had gotten hold of my new card and was milking my account. As soon as I was back home I checked my account and all was OK.

So it was a case of Mr Angry getting onto the phone to the bank again.

Well, to cut a long story short, when the replacement card was cancelled it also meant my current card was also automatically cancelled as it has the same card number – something the young lady neglected to mention in the morning.

This means, for the last week and a half, I have not had a debit card and boy oh boy do I miss it.

Shopping online is a no-no. I have to make sure I have enough cash on me whenever I go out and if I want to actually get some cash out then it is literally half an hour in the branch queuing, then having to prove who I am before I am allowed to have any of my money.

I had not realised just how much we take a little bit of plastic for granted.

Round one of the Racing For Change (RFC) proposals came out yesterday. Ten innocuous recommendations, nothing earth shattering, you could almost call it a “starter for 10”.

However the reaction to some of the changes, especially the recommendation to trial decimal SP’s, has been greeted with derision and outrage in some quarters.

Reading some of the "I'm all right Jack", "I can understand it, so anyone who doesn't is a moron" , "we've always done it that way" type postings on the various forums really make me despair.

With attitudes like that, it is no wonder newcomers find the sport unwelcoming and alien.

These are probably the same people who in the 19th century would have argued against the abolition of sending children up chimneys - "we've always done that".

In the last century they would have objected to women having the vote - "we can't change things, we understand the current system, we don't want newcomers upsetting out comfortable little world".

Or the move from £sd to decimalisation - "I know how pounds shilling and pence work, it’s what I am used to, so why should I change?"

Presumably those opposing the move to decimal odds are those who still yearn for pounds shillings and pence, farthings even groats. Yes the old currency was comfortable, traditional and had been around for years but did it make it better.

Only a time entrenched, myopic fool would argue that calculations post-decimalisation are not easier and simpler than they were pre-decimalisation.

It will be the same with odds – to the uninitiated odds like 85/40, 8/13, 15/8 are meaningless gobbledygook, the same odds expressed as decimals are easy and simple to understand.

They work absolutely fine on Betfair and I don’t see mass protests or petitions for them to revert to “traditional” odds.

Most of the complaints are coming from selfish people in their own little cocoons, happy to be in their comfort zone and sod anybody else.

Goodness knows how they would react if Racing For Change dared to suggest something radical - would they arm themselves with pitch forks and barricade themselves inside Southwell?

So some people say they will walk away from the sport if the changes are implemented - well they can't care much about the sport if something so petty will drive them away, good riddance to them I say, does the sport really want these whingers.

Would it be a bad thing if they left the sport anyway? The dinosaurs are past their sell-by date anyway so perhaps it is about time they died out.

Sure nobody likes change, we all like to be in our comfort zones but the world changes and racing should be no exception.

It is no longer the 19th century gentleman’s club it used to be, however it is still stuck in the mid 20th century and it needs to be dragged screaming into the 21st century.

Yes “tradition” is nice but it is not sacrosanct. If a tradition stands in the way of progress there should be no compunction in sweeping it aside.

It is no surprise one of the primary whingers is that well known self-publicist bookmaker Barry Dennis.

If Barry “Stegosaurus” Dennis doesn’t want to use decimal odds then, as far as I am concerned, he can take his ego and his pitch elsewhere.

Let’s face it all Barry Dennis really seems to care about is his own self publicity, his ego and of course making money, I personally don’t believe for one minute he cares at all about the greater good of racing, all he seems to care about is the greater good of Barry Dennis.

Anyone who saw the fly on the wall television documentary about him could clearly see for themselves what an obnoxious, sexist boor he is – is he really the sort of person we want as a public face of racing?

The initial RFC recommendations are no doubt weak and bland but a step in the right direction.

The concept of using decimal odds is what racing needs, but a one weekend trial will prove nothing, one way or the other.

If people care about racing more than they care about themselves then change must not only be embraced but actively encouraged.

These initial ten proposals are not going to make any radical difference – there are more important issues like admission costs, catering costs, developing a clear pattern to the racing seasons in order to engage the wider public.

However if those who go racing cannot even embrace simple innocuous changes what hope is there of ever implementing something more radical?

I sometimes wonder if the sport deserves to survive?

TV Cannot Attract Many New Racegoers

There has been a decent debate on one of the racing forums in recent days about coverage of racing on terrestrial television. In particular Channel Four’s coverage on Saturday afternoon.

The gist of some of the complaints is the standard of coverage, coupled with the BBC’s reduction of racing coverage, will not attract new followers to the sport.

I would contend no matter how slick the presentation is on television, very few new racegoers will be attracted via the medium, unlike in the “good old days” when many of my generation found the sport via television.

The trouble is society has changed.

I certainly got my love of racing from watching it on television on Saturday afternoons, in black and white as well. With “The Voice” on BBC and Tony Cook on ITV - along with John Rickman, Clive Graham et al. Initially though I watched it not out of choice but because there was little else to do as an alternative.

In those days there was little competition for the leisure time – people didn’t go out much at weekends, most families didn’t even have cars – we never had one.

There were only two television channels for goodness sake and both of those had sport on Saturday afternoons – probably racing on both channels at the same time – a monopoly.

Nowadays there are so many other attractions – it is only events like the Grand National and, to a lesser extent, The Derby and Royal Ascot that will probably attract the casual viewer.

Nowadays I think it will be more luck than anything else if somebody is converted to the sport via television – the two opportunities we have are the National because it is so popular and possibly Royal Ascot where we may just catch a few of those tuning in to watch the fashions.

So, although it grieves me to say it, no matter how slick the presentation - I don’t think terrestrial coverage in 2010 will draw in as many newcomers to the sport as we need – which is why, heaven help us, Racing For Change is going to be so critical to the future of our sport.

A Question Of Timing

We are, once again, at the time of year when the racing program is controlled as much by the weather than by the BHA Planning Department.

The recent cold spell has resulted in a spate of abandonments as are result of sub zero temperatures.

In many cases the decision not to race is clear cut, however on other occasions the decision is not so clear cut and we face the dilemma of Clerks Of The Course playing a game of brinkmanship.

Now it is fully understandable that a course be given every chance to race, however there also needs to be a point by which time a final decision to race has to be made.

Making a final decision half an hour or an hour before the start of racing is unfair on racegoers, who seem to be the last stakeholder considered when it comes to making the decision to race.

Why should racegoers be expected to make sometimes long journeys to the course only to find it is called off at the last minute?

If a racegoer has already bought their ticket should they still take the risk and travel to the course? If they do and racing is off then they have wasted their journey, if they don’t go and racing goes ahead they loose their, not insignificant, admission costs. Either way the racegoer is the loser.

However there was a very telling comment during yesterdays deliberations at Cheltenham.

Cheltenham’s PR manager went on BBC Radio Five Live at 10:11 and made a comment along the lines that if racing was called off then racegoers could still come along and use the bars. That, to me, says it all.

We also have the vexed issue of consistency of information when these protracted inspections take place and in the last week the differences have been well highlighted.

Last Monday was the Welsh National meeting at Chepstow. Clerk of the course Tim Long was open and frank throughout the day, telling the issues exactly as they were. Even going into the final inspection he openly said it was “touch and go”.

Racing did go ahead and it was a late decision, however with the honesty and openness those thinking of going racing were making an informed decision as to whether to set off or not. Having said that the decision was still made far too late.

Now move forward five days and Cheltenham. All the pronouncements coming from the course were positive, nothing negative.

Yet those who were at the course were almost universally of the opinion that it was more likely racing would not go ahead.

This belief was even reflected by the Betfair odds.

As it happened racing went ahead, however it was a very close decision and the overly optimistic pronouncements were not a true reflection of the real situation.

There are also questions being asked about the pressures being applied to ensure racing went ahead. Especially amongst the jockeys.

At 11:00 a significant number of jockeys were expressing concerns about the safety of the track yet we are told at 11:45 there had been a straw poll in the weighing room and only two riders had expressed dissent regarding racing going ahead.

There was no significant change in the ground conditions in those 45 minutes.

So why the volte-face from the jockeys?

Unsurprisingly none were prepared to say anything “on the record” so we are left to form our own conclusions.

After the first race further concerns were expressed about ground conditions and a further inspection was held, delaying proceedings and adding to the uncertainty.

In the end racing went ahead but with 30 non-runners.

Is what happened at Cheltenham on Saturday good for the image of racing?

I would suggest not.

Racing wants to attract new racegoers – how will we attract them if we have uncertainty like we have had the past few days? With racegoers not knowing if racing is going to go ahead or not?

Is “put racing on at all costs if possible” the right ethos?

If racegoers are messed about like this they will turn their backs on the sport. Treating racegoers with contempt will only serve to alienate them.

We almost had a third “will it, won’t it” scenario today with a second inspection called at Sandown at 10:00. At least on this occasion the decision was made at that time and racing was called off.

Now I think three hours before the first race is a good time to make a final call as to whether a meeting goes ahead.

If a course is not fit to race three hours before the first race it should be called off. Yes there will be some occasions when a meeting is called off when it may have been raceable come the off time of the opening race.

There is a more fundamental issue and that is who makes the decision to race. Should it be left to the courses who, let’s face it, have a vested financial interest in racing going ahead?

How big a say should the jockeys have, yes they are the ones who will be riding but they also have a vested financial interest in the meeting going ahead – no rides, no pay.

I have said this many times before but I believe the decision as to whether a race meeting goes ahead should be taken away from the courses and be put in the hands of an independent team under the auspices of the BHA.

By all means take soundings from the courses, jockeys, trainers and owners but also consider the impact on the racegoers as well. However the key aspect is the decision should not take into account the financial impact of cancellation but should be wholly on safety grounds.

A few more comments on the issue of cancellations.

There are some who believe more effort should be made to run a meeting like Cheltanham on a Bank Holiday than a low grade midweek meeting at somewhere Plumpton.

Why?

A course is either raceable or it isn’t – the quality of racing is irrelevant.

A prime example of a meeting being run for financial expediency was the Plumpton meeting where Tony McCoy rode his 3,000th winner.

Conditions were atrocious that day – can the BHA and officials at Plumpton put their hands on their hearts and say the meeting would still have gone ahead had McCoy’s landmark not been looming. I would suggest not.

One final observation - when there are a spate of abandonments why do the BHA feel compelled to add additional all-weather fixtures?

Invariably the cancelled meetings are turf national-hunt cards. By replacing them with all-weather fixtures there is not a “like-for-like” replacement. So what is the motive.

Who, apart from the bookmakers, do these low grade meetings help?

They don’t help the horses, trainers or jockeys who are missing out as a result of the abandoned meeting.

They are unlikely to attract the same racegoers as the abandoned meetings.