An Almost Perfect Day

When you spend as much time going racing as I do you tend to get into something of a rut, when run race just seems to be like any other, almost a merry-go-round of racing, some ups, some downs and plenty of nondescript stuff in the middle.

Occasionally you will get a race which will make you sit up and pay attention, a promising newcomer, a great turn of foot, a Houdini escape from a seemingly impossible position.

Even more rarely you will get one of those special, “I was there moments.”

Day’s like the first Sunday in October last year, at a racecourse at the top end of a forest in the centre of Paris. The day when Sea The Stars extricated himself, with the assistance of Mick Kinane, from seemingly impossible position to win the Arc. It was an unbelievable performance which had to be seen to be believed, it was a scene that had tears rolling down the cheeks of many a cynical hack, myself included.

You came away privileged at having witnessed such a fantastic race live, coming home knowing you have probably experienced a once in a lifetime race.

If somebody had said to me that day in October that eight months later I would, once again be watching a race in total awe, I would have laughed at them

Yet on Saturday, on a triangular track at the bottom of The Queen’s rather large back garden there was an equine performance which left those who watched it standing there open mouthed, not believing what they had just witnessed.

I am referring, of course, to Harbinger’s demolition of a small but very select field in Ascot’s King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes. He beat two Derby winners but that was not what caught the eye. It was the manner of his victory and the emphatic manner in which he accelerated down the home straight under Olivier Peslier.

To emphasise how good a performance it was he broke the course record for good measure and all this under what was effectively a third choice rider.

Stable Jockey Ryan Moore had the choice of riding Harbinger or Workforce and he settled with the Derby winner.

Moore is not renown for showing his emotions but one look at his face after Saturday’s race said it all …….. he knew he had made a really bad choice.

The ride on Harbinger had also been offered to Frankie Dettori but he opted, instead, to ride at York, so the ride went to Peslier and what a ride he gave the horse.

The race was eloquently summed up by Alistair Down when he said, “I cannot believe what I have just seen.”

Nor could any of us in the press room at Ascot, even the handful of us who had gone against the “perceived wisdom” and had thought Harbinger had the beating of Workforce and backed our belief with hard cash. Even we could not believe the manner of victory.

The near sell out crowd at Ascot also appreciated the performance and horse, rider and trainer all received a rapturous welcome after the race.

It was almost, but not quite, perfect.

So what was wrong?

Well Ascot probably has one of the most stunningly impressive parade rings, not only in this country but in the world and it was packed before the race with racegoers wanting to see the six magnificent horses before the race.

They waited and they waited but the runners did not appear in the parade ring until less than ten minutes before the off, meaning they had barely had the opportunity to do one lap of the parade ring before the bell went for the horses to mount.

This surely is not enough, especially with such a big race. Racegoers have the right to see the horses parading properly in the parade ring, not just a token appearance.

I’m told it was to ensure the race went off on time because of the television coverage. We are talking BBC television coverage here, coverage that has been so decimated one actually wonders why they bother. Yet it seems they can still dictate timings, even if it is to the detriment of the paying punters.

It is a shame racegoers at Ascot were short changed on this one.

Speaking of the BBC it was a pleasant surprise to see Radio Five Live giving top billing to the meeting, even presenting Sport On Five from the course and providing live commentary on all the races.

Clearly they could not find any minor county league football to cover live or there wasn’t a tiddlywinks competition begging for live coverage and I suspect the early finish of the Pakistan / Australia test match helped as they had more time to fill.

Whatever the reason, full marks for giving the meeting prominence, even if it did mean having the inane utterances of Kevin Day, who is allegedly some sort of comedian, rolled out to dumb down the coverage. I can’t remember the exact question but as I was caught in traffic trying to get to the course I remember listening to Day chatting to commentator John Hunt. One of the questions Day asked Hunty was so stupid, so inane, had it been put to me I would not only have told him but I would have provided a practical demonstration as to where he should stick his microphone.

Why do broadcasters feel the need to dumb down to the level of a moron.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Despite it having been my local course for the first thirty odd years of my life, and having been a frequent visitor to the course, I have never actually attended a Glorious Goodwood meeting. Hopefully that will change tomorrow.

I am told the atmosphere is really good (and the racing isn’t that bad either) so I am really looking forward to my first visit to the festival.

This week also sees one of Ireland’s biggest festivals, the Galway Festival. By all accounts you need a very strong liver for this particular as the racing apparently takes second place to the partying. Another Festival I have yet to visit, although I should have perhaps visited a few years ago when I was a drinker.

The Floodgates Open

I suppose it was not the greatest surprise that Harry Findlay’s ban was reduced on appeal but, nonetheless, it is not a good day for the sport.

It seems, sadly, that threatening to throw ones toys out of the pram results in a massive climb down by the disciplinary panel.

I am not going to rake through the details of what Findlay did, they are more than adequately documented elsewhere.

The bottom line is Findlay broke one of the rules which is fundamental to the integrity of the sport. His assertion it was a genuine mistake defies belief …. he is an experienced, professional gambler. These men know the rules inside out and they know the loopholes and they certainly do not make the naïve mistakes Findlay claims to have made.

In my view Findlay thought he could get away with flouting the rules because of who he is – frankly he thinks he is bigger than the sport.

The rule is quite clear, owners cannot lay their own horses – a very simple black and white rule – no ambiguity.

It matters not if Findlay stood to be an overall loser or winner with the lay bet. The bottom line is he fragrantly broke the rule and he should be punished with the full force of the regulation.

Allowing for mitigation in matters of integrity should be a no-go area. Any breach of the rules of racing that impact integrity should automatically have a ban – regardless of who the individual is.

After Findlay received the initial ban he threatened to walk away from the sport in the UK – let’s hope he still sticks to that threat, although I somehow suspect he will not.

Racing does not need the likes of Findlay.

More importantly the findings of the appeal committee have blown a massive hole in the bid to maintain the integrity of racing.

Despite the assertion by the appeal committee that Findlay’s case is unique and a one off, this has set a precedent.

Any half decent lawyer will be able to quote this case as a precedent in any future hearing – thus opening up a massive can of worms.

The decision of the appeal hearing has done racing a great disservice, another nail in the coffin of the sport.

- - - - -

Last week I had a blast at what I called the “spineless cowards” of internet forums, interestingly despite a couple of thousand hits not one individual has contacted me to “defend” their position although I have received many mails supporting my stance.

- - - - -

One of the “marmite” meetings of the year is a mere three weeks away, I refer to Ascot’s Shergar Cup meeting, racings only team competition.

Now I am the first to admit I was the meetings biggest critic when it was first mooted, now I am its biggest fan.

It is a different day out, it may not be a betting medium but there is more to racing than betting. The meeting now attracts a crowd in excess of 50,000 each year as it grows in popularity.

Far too much money has been spent on Racing For Change (RFC), an initiative that has delivered nothing for the money invested. Ascot has done more with the Shergar Cup to involve and attract new racegoers than anything achieved by RFC.

Jockeys are accessible, there is a competitive edge added to the racing with the team competition, which provides fun and entertainment throughout the afternoon.

This year there is a new change, which will be a nightmare for race-readers and commentators, in that jockeys will wear full team colours. Previously runners have worn owners silks with caps and breeches being the distinguishing features.

This year, in consultation with the owners association there will be full team colours worn.

The three jockeys riding for Great Britain will wear red and white, those representing Ireland will sport green and white, jockeys riding for Europe blue and white, while the Rest of the World team will carry black and white silks. In order to differentiate, distinguishing caps and sleeves will be worn.

A good change which will surely enhance the afternoon.

To those who knock the meeting and call it a disgrace the answer is simple - don't watch it, if betting is so important to you then there are another five meetings that day.

Spineless Cowards

I’m returning to one of my regular themes again this week although I promise for the final time, it is the scourge of the internet forum.

The internet has opened up the world, providing information at the touch of a button, it also allows people to have a voice, to express their views and feelings , no matter how outlandish or perverse.

Blogs allow for individual expression and internet forums allow for “discussion”.

Most of the time the discussion, although lively, is generally good natured and harmless.

However there is also a nasty underbelly, which has been highlighted in the past week.

The Racing Forum is, unarguably, the best of the racing related forums on the internet, it bills itself as being the home if intelligent debate and, doubtlessly, it is by far the best of breed, excellently managed and moderated.

Those who post on the forum fall into three categories, a small minority (like myself) post under their real names. Another minority post using a pseudonym but their real identity is obvious. However the majority of posters are totally anonymous.

Now for the majority of threads on the forum this is not a real issue as the content is generally harmless.

However there are also a number of insidious threads which are used to attack racing “personalities”, the majority, of course, being pocket talking so excusable, if not generally pathetic.

Occasionally, however, a thread appears which just goes too far, is just vindictive and were it, for example, to appear in the same form in the printed media would feel the full force of the PCC.

Once such thread has appeared on The Racing Forum in the past week or so …. now I am the first to admit this particular thread it not unique and, compared with what appears on in some other forums or internet sites, is by no means the worse.

However it does clearly illustrate one of the biggest problems with the internet and it highlights why I believe governments need to consider passing legislation to ensure enforceable regulation over internet content.

The thread was simply entitled Peter Naughton. I had a quick look assuming it was going to be another thread picking holes in something a presenter had said on television. Theses types of thread are two a penny, generally ignorant, ill informed comment , almost always coming from an anonymous contributor.

However this one was different, it was attacking Peter Naughton’s tipping line. Now let me say from the outset that tipping lines generally are fair game when it comes to criticism. Very few offer value for money and very few and certainly only the very best survive for any period of time.

On a couple of occasions I have been asked if I wanted to invest in a tipping line. Now whilst I have nothing against tipping lines per-se, close examination of the business model, or more importantly considering questions not addressed in the business plan, show they are not a get rich quick schemes and there is a very real risk of losing money on the investment – but I digress.

It was quickly clear from the first few postings that the thread was going to take a particularly nasty turn.

Needless to say the thread was started by one of our anonymous heroes. It seems he has been following Naughton’s tipping line and has discovered, how shall I put it, inconsistencies in some of Naughton’s claims.

He has been calling Naughton’s tipping line for several minutes each day and editing his findings, alleging several inconsistencies.

Now on the face of it what was being alleged certainly appeared to be in breach of the guidelines for premium rate telephone services, indeed there appeared to be a prima-face case.

So I asked on the thread whether the original complainant had raised the matter with the appropriate regulator? He, of course, refused to respond but one of the “usual (anonymous of course) suspects” came back with a completely irrelevant answer saying it wasn’t necessary.

Anyway, each day the “findings” continued to emerge so I asked another question, one to which I already knew the answer, and that was had the person making the allegations actually put them to Peter Naughton and I also made a comment about the credibility of anonymous posters.

Well the abuse and allegations made against me then had to be seen to be believed and it has made me, once and for all, walk away completely from internet forums.

Let’s look at some of the issues raised by this particular thread.

Let me say from the outset if a tipping line, no matter who it is hosted by, is deliberately setting out to make misleading claims then it deserves to be exposed and, if proven to be in breach, shut down.

However there are ways and means of doing it properly.

Firstly all the allegations being made are being accepted at face value by most of those reading the postings, yet there is no credible substantiation.

First of all the allegations are coming from an anonymous source. Who is he / she? Why is he/she conducting this exposé?

What are they hoping to achieve by posting the findings on an internet forum. It will not lead to the site being shut down as they seem unwilling to present their so called evidence to the regulators.

How do we know this individual does not have some vendetta with Peter Naughton? Why pick on this particular tipping line, when there are plenty worse?

Secondly, how credible is the “evidence” being presented. He claims he calls the tipping line each day and the calls last around seven minutes, yet he only selectively quotes snippets from the call which support his own point of view?

Does he have recordings / transcripts of all the calls? How do we know the quotes he is providing are not being quoted out of context?

Certainly in that very same thread comments I had made were being taken out of context to try to “prove” something I did not actually say.

Thirdly, why have the allegations not been put to Naughton for a response?

If these allegations were being made in the written press the journalist making them would have to make them openly, would have to keep full records and notes and would have to present the evidence to the “accused” to allow a response prior to publication.

Because these allegations are being made online none of those rules have to be followed and that cannot be right.

Indeed more than one individual actually made the point that because it is the Internet then it does not matter if the allegations are made fairly.

Even one of the more sensible contributors to the forum, an established and respected owner, made the comment there are many critical threads on forums and individuals are not given the right to reply. Indeed there are but that does not make it right.

I happen know these allegations had not been put to Naughton because I actually mentioned them to him when I saw him at the races last week. Before I had spoken to him he had never even heard of The Racing Forum, so he had know way of knowing about the allegations, yet alone have an opportunity to respond.

He was concerned by the allegations but interestingly one of the first comments he made to me was “I suppose they being made anonymously?”

When I replied they were he, understandably, seemed to lose any interest in even bothering to look, yet alone respond and, frankly, I cannot blame him.

When I made a point in the forum about allegations coming from anonymous sources lack the credibility of openly made allegations the person making the allegations, predictably, came back with the pathetic argument that what he writes behind a pseudonym is equally valid to something written openly.

What complete and utter rubbish …. the comments, no matter how well intentioned are absolutely worthless.

Then again how can you argue with somebody who has such a misguided, moronic view and perspective.

He is not clever, he is a coward, happy to snipe, make unsubstantiated allegations and conduct a character assassination with what he believes to be impunity.

I will say it openly – he, and his ilk, are spineless cowards, bullies who are “brave” behind a cloak but who do not have the guts or courage of their convictions to openly come out and say what they thing and believe.

The sooner the internet and everyone who contributes to it or publishes content is covered by the same rules and laws which apply to the print media the better. I realise the government have more pressing priorities but this cancer on the internet needs to be excised.

I would have put these points to the individual calling themselves “Armchair Jockey”, so they could respond – but as they choose to remain anonymous how can I?

Of course, in the unlikely event "Armchair Jockey", or any of his ilk are reading this and wish to defend their approach and actions then I am quite happy to give them the space for a response - only one condition though - the response has to be open and not hidden behind some pathetic pseudonym - I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply though.

Sink Or Swim?

These have been quite a few leaks this week about cutbacks in the fixture list for 2011, I’m going to wait until the fixture list is actually published before making any comment on cuts, although it is a subject dear to my heart.

However the speculation has prompted Ffos Las supremo Dai Walters to warn Ffos Las, Britain’s newest, may be forces to close if the reports are true. Actually I hope that isn’t the case but it has made me think, which courses would I not mind seeing close.

I was initially tempted to go through all sixty courses but decided it is too much like hard work for me to do and for you, dear reader, to plough through.

So what I will do is go through the tracks which I feel strongly should remain open or I would be happy to see become a new chapter in Chris Pitt’s, A Long Time Gone, the bible of closed racecourses.

If I don’t mention a racecourse here it means I have no strong feeling either way.

Aintree: now on “normal” race days Aintree can be one of the most desolate courses imaginable, empty and soulless, However for three days in April it hosts one of the greatest jumps meetings in the world, including arguably the most famous steeplechase of all the Grand National and for that reason alone Aintree has to survive.

Ascot: the building of the new stand was nothing if not controversial and I was one of its greatest critics. However Ascot listened to the feedback and addressed the issues. Now I love the place and Ascot has to rank amongst the best racecourses in the world, it stays.

Ayr: It calls itself Scotland’s Premier Racecourse – it ain’t. Although millions have been spent improving the inside of the stands, externally they still look tired and jaded. The track itself is beset with problems, they regularly seem to have unsafe or false ground. One I would shed no tears for were it to close.

Bath: It has the distinction of being the UK’s highest racecourse and therein lies a problem in that it is built on a free draining hill, yet it has no watering system. This invariably results in firm going and resultant small fields. Weekend meetings are a nightmare attracting beer swilling hoards. Another that would not be missed.

Brighton: The course has long had a sordid reputation, although this has improved in recent years. The place still does have a seedy, tatty feel and the stand could do with being replaced. On the plus side the views are fantastic but this also results in major problems in that a sea fret frequently rolls in, obscuring visibility of the racing. As Sir Alan, now Lord, Sugar would say, “reluctantly, you’re fired.”

Cartmel: A perfect example of “less is more.” Only racing seven days a year this is a gem of a course. It should be an abject failure as viewing is terrible but this is more than compensated by the idyllic setting and fantastic atmosphere. This is a course I would dip into my own pocket to save.

Chester: One of two controversial inclusions in this list I suspect. As this would be the first course I would close down. I dislike the place with a vengeance. It may well be the oldest course in the country but it is not fit for purpose. Viewing is terrible, it is cramped and ram packed solid with racegoers at every meeting. Now some would take the latter to be a positive and it would be if they were there to watch the racing. Chester is a drinkers course, where the object seems to be to pour as much alcohol as possible down ones throat then become as obnoxious as possible. Chester could stage three legged donkey racing and most of those attending would be none the wiser. If you have ever wondered what it is like to attend a Chav’s convention then may I suggest a day at Chester races.

Fakenham and Ffos Las: I am going to lump these two together as they have similar issues.

Unless you happen to live locally both are absolute sods to get to. In the case of Fakenham it is located in a part of the country where dual carriageways have not yet been invented and whichever way you go you will be on bendy, single carriageway roads. Add to that the local farmers seem to use driving their tractors at 20mph on raceday as being some sort of mating ritual you will arrive exasperated.

With Ffos Las it just seems a long way from anywhere, look at the map and it simply seems to be a case of popping across the Severn Bridge and then a quick hop down the M4. It isn’t it is a very long drag down the M4 and when you finally escape the motorway the local signposting to the course takes you a very pretty way indeed.

However both should be saved.

With Fakenham the journey is vindicated by one of the friendliest tracks you are ever likely to visit. Small, compact, good viewing and some decent arcing.

With Ffos Las you get one of the best, if not the best, racing surfaces in the country.

Fontwell: Well I am biased here but this is the very first course I visited and I love the place.

You have never properly experienced National Hunt racing unless you have watched a Fontwell chase from the intersection in the centre of the course.

Haydock: This was a once great course which has been emasculated by constant tinkering to the National Hunt course. The ground has been bear ruined and the going reports frequently border on fantasy. Worse of all the priority of the executive seems to be more focused on attracting Chester’s boozers and Chavs than providing decent racing. So another for which no tears would be shed.

Kempton: London could easily afford to lose one course and it would have to be Kempton. Granted it is home of the King George and it does still host some half decent jump meetings. However its sell out to AW racing is unforgivable.

Redcar: OK some personal prejudice here. If the wind is in the wrong direction you get the fumes from the nearby chemical plant so you go home with a sore throat and streaming eyes. It is a real pain to get through and driving through the bleak industrial wasteland to reach the course is depressing and to add to the depression, to reach the car park you then have to drive through the middle of a cemetery. That just about suns it up.

York: And we end with another controversial decision. Yes it is a great track, yes the racing can be high quality. However it is another course ruined by its clientele. The mid-week non Festival meetings are just about bearable but for the festivals and weekend meetings, it turns into a drink fest and a not very pleasant one either. By late afternoon there is invariably an edge to the place as the alcohol begins to take effect. A shame but for me it ruins a good afternoons racing and like Chester is one of the courses I invariably leave thinking I would not be at all perturbed if I was never to go there again.