Sexism, Hypocrisy and Frost Covers

They say never discuss politics or religion in public, to that list I think we can now add don’t discuss sexist issues, even in private.

Unless you have been holed up somewhere for the last week without radio, television, newspapers and the internet you will be aware there has been a huge furore around the subject of sexism in football, in particular, but also in sport and society in general.

I’m not going to go into great detail concerning what was said by Messer’s Gray and Keys - that has been discussed to death elsewhere.

Suffice to say their comments were, in my view, crass but certainly not in the “hang them” category.

As for Gray’s comment regarding the microphone pack, that was adolescent and immature from somebody who should know better. What is interesting with that incident though, is no complaint was made at the time and it seemingly only came to light as if to make a point and to “justify” actions.

I would also add that in the 18 odd years of Sky Sports existence I can only recall ever having watched one live football match, therefore I have no views on the competency, ability or otherwise of Gray and Keys.

There are, however, two aspects of the affair I find worrying.

The first is how the matter came to light in the first place. The comments from Keys and Gray were made off-air, yet somehow a recording of the comments was passed to the media, thus putting them into the public domain.

Who released the recordings to the media and why? Were they leaked with the tacit, or even explicit, knowledge of senior management with Sky? Were they leaked in order to get rid of, specifically, Gray?

If there was no complicity from Sky management, then what action has or will be taken against whoever leaked the recordings? At the very least there must be a copyright breach.

To me the whole affair looks like a clumsy effort to get rid of a presenter who has seemingly fallen out of favour.

Had the comments been made “on air” then, yes the position of both men would be untenable. However they were not made on air and no matter how crass the comments may be, the outcry has been disproportionate.

Although no defence per-se, it needs to be remembered that Gray has spent his entire life in the world of football and he played in an era where the game was played in an even more macho environment than now. In effect he knows nothing different, for him it is the norm.

It is a generational thing and attitudes of the younger generations in relation to sexism and other contentious matters are going to be more “enlightened”.

Views are very much impacted by experience and upbringing.

The views of many of my parent’s generation, on matters like race for example, I find incomprehensible but I still do not believe it is the result of inherent racism, it is a reflection how society was in their formative years.

In my formative years I was taught, by both my mother and grandmother, that a woman’s place is in the home and that raising children takes priority over a career. My mother, almost into her eighties, still strongly holds that view today and to an extent she does have a point (conversely I can see the other side of the argument as well).

So one can see how sexism can become entrenched and it is all too simplistic to criticise people who hold contrary views to ourselves or views which differ from those generally held by society. Bear in mind, also, the norms of society are constantly changing an devolving, not always for the best.

We live in a society where we are supposed to cherish free speech, yet now sometimes you have to wonder if that is so.

In the words incorrectly attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The bigger issue I have is the hypocrisy that has surrounded the whole affair and the hypocrisy comes from many levels.

The first is the hypocrisy from the Murdoch empire.

Again let me declare my hand here. This is undoubtedly the only time in my life I will agree with anything Vince Cable says but I do not like Murdoch or his empire and believe he has far too much influence in political circles.

However, as our American cousins would say, let’s do the math.

Murdoch = The Sun = Page 3 = sexist

Murdoch = Sky = platform for porn stations = sexist

Yet Sky then take a massive hand wringing, holier than thou, attitude when two presenters make off air sexist comments and come out with reams of anti-sexism rhetoric.

Is that not hypocritical?

There is also the hypocritical attitude of those in “the media” quick to jump on the bandwagon and call for the heads of Keys and Gray.

Of their broadcasters who called for their sacking, I wonder how many could actually put their hands on their hearts and say they have never made an “off air” comment which could be construed as offensive even, dare I say libellous.

If expressing a sexist opinion in the workplace was a sackable offence then I could say with some confidence there would be some very empty press rooms at our racecourses, as well as workplaces the length and breadth of the country.

Before the ardent feminists form a lynch mob outside my door, I would also point out I have, during my working life, worked in many female dominated offices, sometimes being the only token male. I can categorically say a bunch of women working together can be as, and often far more, sexist than any predominantly male environment.

A final thought, what about comments passed in press rooms about the honesty of certain trainers or rides given by jockeys, there are many conversations along those lines. Most of them un-broadcastable or un-printable, should the hacks be sacked for stating those views as well? If not where is the line to be drawn?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In today’s Racing Post senior BHA handicapper Phil Smith says “I’d make frost covers compulsory on all jumps courses.”

Well it’s just as well Phil has a job as a handicapper, as he would make a lousy accountant, more on that anon.

Whilst it is true the deployment of frost covers have managed to save some prominent race meetings, there are as many cases where the application of covers has singularly failed.

The difference cannot be explained simply by differences in temperatures.

For example covers have worked at Cheltenham where the mercury has dropped to -5 or -6 degrees, yet covers have failed to save meetings at Haydock where temperature hit only -2.

The reasons for the success, or otherwise, of the covers are far more complex and require a great deal more research. The question is who pays for the research?

Successful application of frost covers benefits all the racing industry, ergo funding into research should come from all interested parties. Therefore the courses, BHA, Horseman’s Group and the bookmakers should each contribute to the research.

Well they should in an ideal world. Of course the world is not ideal and our world is one where the vested interests cannot even agree on the basic fundamentals of how the sport is funded. We have little chance, therefore, of paying for research into the use of frost covers.

Then we have the financials of frost cover deployment. I am reliably informed a set of covers costs around £30k and the costs of deployment are around £15k, as it is such a labour intensive job.

For Grade One courses the capital and deployment costs may be justifiable, although that has to be questionable. The costs are by no means justifiable for the smaller courses though.

I recall Fontwell’s attempt to cover the course for their Boxing day meeting, they had to rely on volunteers, drawn mainly from Tote staff, to actually lay and lift the covers. It is too much to ask courses to constantly rely on volunteers to deploy covers.

As it is unlikely funding for a detailed investigation could be garnered from all the vested interests then I believe we are left with two possible options.

We can either carry on with the current haphazard system, where courses are left to their own devices in the use of covers, where sometimes it may work and at other times it fails. (Of course there could be a radical rider to this in that the RCA use their regular Clerk Of The Course seminars to actually compare notes and for courses that successfully deploy frost covers to share their knowledge and experiences.)

Alternatively the Levy could commission independent research, coupled with a full cost benefit analysis, into the best way forward in terms of deployment.

Should it turn out not to be economically viable then there is no harm in admitting so and we revert to the system we have had for the past few hundred years, in we let nature take its course. Should that be the case the BHA can extend its proactive response in rescheduling lost races or even fixtures.

The use of frost covers is an initiative that is to be applauded but, once again, racing seems to have managed to show its ability to go off half-cocked, seemingly without any coordination, with individual courses each doing their own thing.

I have said this many times in the past and I make no apologies for saying it again, until racing has a unified, cohesive, management structure running the sport then it is destined to wander aimlessly.

Monday Morning Conundrum

Here is a Monday morning conundrum for you – who “owns” the racing results?

Now it may seem a somewhat trite, almost insignificant, question to the average racegoer, however within the world of the racing media it is becoming a major issue.

Allow me to explain.

After each race the judge produces a results slip which shows the finishing order, times (either the actual time run in flat races or the time behind the winner for national hunt races) and distances for all the runners in a race – in effect the official result.

Historically this information was produced by Racetech as part of the integrity service and copies of the results slips were supplied to the press room, mainly for the benefit of the PA, Raceform and Timeform racereaders but other hacks sometimes make use of the sheet to check the finishing position of a particular horse. These sheets are used to provide the full finishing order, as seen on the Racing Post and Sporting Life websites, amongst others.

At the same time as the acrimonious split of racing coverage between SIS and TurfTV there was a change in the provision of the finishing data, which effectively meant results sheets were produced by either SIS or TurfTV.

For those working in the press room this meant very little difference, the sheets were still supplied, the only difference being the format was slightly different depending on which organisation produced the results sheet.

Well that was the case until 1st January this year when the TurfTV tracks said the slips were no longer going to be supplied to the press room.

This is where the situation becomes a little bit complex. The media rights for the TurfTV tracks, which are effectively those tracks signed up to RUK, plus Ascot, are managed by a company called Racecourse Media Group (RMG).

As well as dealing with the media rights of the 30 racecourses, RMG also own 50% of Turf TV, additionally it is also the holding company which owns Racing UK – so it has its fingers in quite a few pies.

However not content with the involvement it already has RMG now wants to charge other media outlets to have access to the official results slips.

They are having a laugh aren’t they?

Can you imagine the outcry if the Premier League or Football League suddenly announced they would charge media outlets to report on scores, goal scorers and times of goals? There would be questions in the house.

It also seems the management of RMG have very short memories. Otherwise they would recall the grand initiative of the then BHB to charge bookmakers and broadcasters to use “racing data”.

Quite rightly the courts kicked the idea into touch.

With the results data there appears to be even less “justification” for selling it, indeed it would be interesting to see if RMG’s claim to actually own the data would stand up in court.

My belief is it would not and it is also my personal belief RMG are taking the view most media outlets would be reluctant to pursue the case in the courts due to the current economic climate and the costs involved. In other words they seem to be hoping the money will be coughed up just for an easy life.

The editor of the Racing Post, Bruce Millington, has been most vociferous in his condemnation of the move, probably because his organisation is being hit most of all.

Also, as often happens in cases like this, a great deal of fog emerges.

For example some have tried to point the finger of blame at the door of the BHA, saying it was their decision to charge for the data, something denied by BHA spokesman Paul Struthers.

In the scheme of things the attempt to charge for the data is not earth shattering, the biggest impact being on those organisations like Raceform / Racing Post and Timeform.

Indeed the problems are not insurmountable as anybody on-course can record the finishing order of a race and it only takes a few minutes with a stopwatch and a recording of the race to calculate the winning distances.

What is worrying is the seeming arrogance of RMG in thinking they have the right to suddenly charge for information that has been freely available since racing began.

Meanwhile at the SIS courses life continues as normal.

If having to pay for basic data is going to upset some sections of the media there may be even worse news to come.

I can exclusively reveal one of the major racecourse groups is considering charging the press to attend their meetings. As a senior executive commented, “Bookmakers have to pay to ply their trade on the racecourse, so why shouldn’t journalists?”

An interesting argument.

If you suddenly find your favourite course suddenly starts receiving less coverage across the media you will know why!!!

Who knows, will they be charging us to park next?

Now that would be interesting. Thankfully few racecourses actually charge for parking and, frankly it is just as well.

Only a handful of courses offer anything approaching decent parking and the number of courses offering a proper, hardstanding, car park can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Indeed parking at some courses can be an absolute nightmare. In a way I am lucky that with all the meetings I attend I have only once had to be towed out of the car park. That experience was all the more galling as I had been told by the parking steward the ground was better “over there”. Had I parked where I originally planned, and not in the bog to which he sent me, I would have escaped fine

That does not mean I have not had some lucky escapes. I always dread going to Towcester after it has been raining, the cloying clay soil is not confined to the racetrack and the car park soon gets chewed up.

However last Monday, at Fakenham, I seriously thought I would be calling on the services of their tractor. It had been raining hard all day and the ground was saturated.

Even parking the car proved to be a challenge, with the wheels spinning, quickly turning the paintwork a muddy brown. Getting out of the car my spirits dropped as I saw my front wheels resting on an indented, bald patch of ground.

After racing my worse fears were confirmed as, even in second gear, the wheels just spun as I tried to pull away. I did notice some good “virgin” ground behind me though and having nothing to lose I threw the car into reverse, managed to get enough traction to set off backwards, onto the better ground and was then able to get enough traction to drive across and out – a lucky escape.

I suppose most courses opened before the days of mass transportation and if they only race a few days a year I can understand provision of car parking space not to be a high priority but it is still frustrating when you have to park in what is effectively a boggy field.

Car parking isn’t the only challenge when driving to the races, the increasing cost of fuel is becoming even more significant.

This time last year it cost just under £50 to fill my tank with petrol, now the cost is nearer £60 and with, some weeks, having to fill up three times it is getting very expensive.

So it is time to find alternatives and I am certainly going to let the train take the strain more in future.

Provided you book ahead some great bargains can be achieved.

I am off to Carlisle on 9th February. By road it is 256 miles each way, about 4½ driving (I am of an age where I need a couple of “comfort” stops on such a long drive), which works out at just over a tank and a half of petrol, so not much change out of £100.

Yet by advance booking I am travelling on a direct train from home to Carlisle, a 3¼ journey, costing only £30.50 return (normal fare £163) and by booking, for free, a seat with a table and power socket I can also make better use of the travelling time.

My final thought for this week.

Why is it, when the results of races can be decided by photo finishes - as much as one pixel can make the difference between victory and defeat, starters sometimes allow such ragged starts at the beginning of National Hunt races.

Take a look at Ascot’s opening race on Saturday and tell me if the start was by any means fair?

Dicipline, Offshoring and Decimals

Disciplinary issues have been making the news in the last week with two cases, in particular, catching the eye.

The first involves the warning off of trainer Jeff Pearce and jockey Jerry O’Dwyer along with several others, in a somewhat complex case.

Now I don’t intend revisiting all the subtleties of the case here, but the full BHA press release can be found here.

However reading the report some very interesting questions are raised.

The first is the threshold level for “conviction”.

Reading the report of the case (and the BHA must be praised for publishing a full briefing) it is abundantly clear the criteria is very much the civil “balance of probability” as opposed to the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Taking it further it is also clear, reading the judgement, the panel definitely seems to work towards the lower end of the balance of probability spectrum.

Now this approach may be justified as disciplinary proceedings clearly are “civil” not “criminal” - although the inclusion of words like conspiracy in the charges do make you wonder.

Having the lower threshold in these types of proceedings is, generally, no bad thing and it allows for the effective administration of disciplinary matters. Most disciplinary proceedings usually result in a slapped wrist, fine or a suspension of days or weeks.

However there are cases, such as this, where the punishment results in a significant ban, which effectively prevents the “guilty” party from plying their trade. In these cases should there not be a higher bar in terms of balance of probability, as the implications of such a ban are extremely serious for those found guilty, effectively denying them their livelihood?

I understand Pearce is going to lodge an appeal and it will be interesting to see how that pans out and how his legal team approaches the appeal.

More worrying than the burden of proof issue though, is the behaviour of the BHA investigators, which can best be described as unprofessional.

They seem to be acting as judge and jury, making a presumption of guilt rather than being detached investigators.

Moreover, comments made during questioning of witnesses proved to be misleading, clearly in an attempt to forcing a “confession”. Methinks the BHA investigators have been watching too many episodes of Life On Mars or The Sweeny, they need to come into the 21st century.

Not only was the approach of the investigators unacceptable, it actually seriously serves to undermine the credibility of the BHA and the good work they are attempting to do to clean up the sport.

Sadly this is not the first time the somewhat murky workings of the BHA’s investigation department have come under scrutiny.

It has been almost universally agreed, except seemingly within the BHA security department itself, their handling of the Fallon debacle was, at best, unprofessional and arguably incompetent and inept.

It seems they have not learned from what has gone on before and one wonders why the investigators in this case and the head of security, Paul Scotney, are not themselves facing charges of bringing racing into disrepute.

It is also interesting, but not surprising, most of the racing media has not picked up on these deficiencies.

It is also amazing Scotney manages to remain in post, as his department is once again shown to fall below the standards that should reasonably be expected. Does he have any credibility left?

Of course the Pearce case will pale into insignificance when, next month, trainer Howard Johnson faces some very serious charges in relation to the welfare of some of the horses in his care.

It would be wrong to comment on the details of the case in advance of any hearing and he is, of course, innocent of any allegations until proven otherwise.

However there will be very close scrutiny on this case, not only from within racing but, undoubtedly, from the wider media as well.

This is one case racing cannot afford to get wrong, not only in the presentation of its case but, should Johnson be found guilty, the appropriateness of any penalty is handed down.

The three year ban handed down to Pearce for what, by comparison, is a much less serious offence, sets a very interesting standard for the Johnson case.

The BHA have made great inroads into cleaning up the sport and they should be applauded for that. However the Pearce case has also thrown some light on the questionable goings-on in the pursuit of “justice”.

We now face a very high profile case, with potential ramifications outside the closed world of racing. I sincerely hope the BHA have got this one right.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Before I begin this next section allow me to lay my cards on the table. I do not work for a bookmaker, nor am I a spokesman for bookmakers.

Also, although I should perhaps go and double check, I do not knowingly own any shares in any bookmaking firm.

Indeed I would go as far to say I have serious reservations about the role of bookmakers in this sport of ours. In an ideal world I would dearly love to see a Tote monopoly, with all profits from the Tote being ploughed back into the sport.

However that ain’t going to happen and love them or loath them the bookmakers are here to stay.

So it may come as some surprise that I am about to defend them.

Last week the home of liberal, left wing, thinking The Guarniad broke the story that The Tote was following most British bookmakers and moving some of its operations offshore – shock horror!!

Cue all the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth about bookmakers moving offshore to avoid having to pay Levy or to optimise their tax liabilities.

Looking at the emotive reaction in some quarters you would have thought the executives of these bookmakers had been raping and pillaging the families of these vociferous opponents.

By moving operations offshore the directors are simply fulfilling their obligations as directors, to maximise the profitability of their organisation. The same principle applies to the Tote, even if it is “owned” by the Government.

Any impact on the Levy should not be a consideration when making such decisions.

The fact the Levy is anachronistic and is of little real benefit to anybody is neither here nor there for the sake of this argument. The Levy only remains in place because those who are supposed to run racing do not have the nouse or financial wherewithal to negotiate a better commercial alternative.

The bottom line is the directors are working in the best interests of their organisations and, ultimately, their shareholders.

As it happens I totally agree with what the bookmakers are doing in terms of moving offshore, it is sound business practice. Yes it may have a negative impact on jobs in the UK and that is unfortunate, at an individual level, for those whose jobs are impacted. However business is business and people losing jobs is part and parcel of business, is a fact of life, always has been, always will be.

However, even if I did not agree with offshoring, I certainly wouldn’t shout about it, criticising it from the rooftops, for the simple reason it would be hypocritical of me.

Why?

Because I employ an accountant to ensure my tax liabilities are minimised, absolutely no different in principle to what the bookmakers are doing.

I wonder how many of those protesting so vociferously about the big bad bookmakers moving offshore, actually employ accountants to ensure their liabilities are minimised? I suspect a significant number of them!!!

Staying on the subject of bookmakers, there has also been the predictable wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as a new range of fractional odds are introduced by bookmakers.

The new odds 9/5, 11/5, 12/5, 13/5, 14/5, 16/5, 17/5, 18/5 and 19/5 made their first appearance yesterday and the “traditionalists” are up in arms about the changes.

My view is bring it on, as it takes us one step nearer to a long overdue switch to decimal odds.

There are those who will argue fractional odds are traditional, they are but that does not make them a sacred cow. If we followed that tack we would still be spending pounds, shillings, pence and farthings.

Most people work with decimals every day, it is what people are used to and what they understand. Fractions in betting are confusing, especially to newcomers, and they will put people off.

Your average racegoers will have to think twice as to whether 7/4 is better or worse than 15/8, yet with 1.75 and 1.87 it is not only immediately clear which is better, it is also much simpler to calculate how much return there will be.

Decimal odds also offer greater choice for both the punter and the bookmaker. Instead of the current, arbitrary, range of odds that are available, having decimal odds will offer greater choice and, I believe, will make the ring more competitive.

Talking of traditions, the BHA announced the introduction of a new stalls draw numbering system to “bring us in line with the rest of the world” personally I think the new system is more confusing but I am not going to lose sleep over it. However in keeping with following the rest of the world I presume all race distances will now be converted to metric and we will do away with furlongs, which are even more anachronistic than our former draw numbering system.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Last Saturday really hammered home both the good and bad sides of racing.

At Kempton Nicky Henderson ruled supreme winning five, almost six, top contests including dethroning Kauto Star in the King George.

Yet despite having a magnificent afternoon at Kempton I expect Henderson also wishes the meeting at Warwick the same day had failed its early morning inspection. As in the Novices’ Chase Henderson lost one of his most promising youngsters when Peveril took a horrible fall at the last when leading.

An accident which underlines what a fine line there is between glory and tragedy, something that should never be forgotten in this sport of ours.

On the subject of Kauto Star, I hope connections do the right thing and retire him. He has nothing more to prove, he is not going to win another Gold Cup so why run him at Cheltenham.

There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Finally, in my last set of musings I mention my friends wife who was battling against cancer. Sadly she passed away just hours after I published my thoughts, as the too young age of 48, leaving a devastated husband and two young daughters and many friends.

A lovely lady, taken away by a terrible disease, far too soon, many tears have been and will still be shed, not only for the loss but the unfairness of it all.

As I said last time and I make no apologies for saying again, it puts a load of horses running round a field into some sort of perspective.

Happy New Year?

New Year is traditionally a time to look forward and why should I be any different as I take a look at what I would like to see in 2011.

Of course one reaches a certain age where the hope and optimism of youth gives way to the realities of the real world and the level of cynicism rises exponentially with each increasing year.

If I were still in the optimistic flushes of youth I would hope to see a unified organisation running racing, as opposed to the disparate mish-mash we have now, all of whom seem to care more about their own self-interests than the overall interest of the sport they profess to care about.

Of course achieving such a united organisational structure would be on a par with resolving the Middle East crisis.

So we need something more achievable.

The first and most far reaching change is actually one of the easiest to implement and that is the removal of Paul Roy from the Chairmanship of the BHA. He has already shown his ego gets in the way of common-sense and the debacle of the Betfair shares must throw his ability to do the job into serious doubt.

Secondly we need a fundamental change to the fixture list for 2012 with not only a radical cut in the number of fixtures but a fundamental restructure in the funding of the sport. This is an area I have touched on before and one I do not intend repeating here. (For my previous musings on the matter take a look at "What A Carry On" last August)

The other changes I would like to see in 2011 are the decisions to race in inclement conditions being taken away from local officials and the appointment of fully professional bands of stewards, instead of the enthusiastic amateurs currently used, who seem to be unable to work with any consistency.

Racing For Change should be consigned to the fog of memory, an unnecessary expense which has made a great deal noise yet has delivered little for the benefit of the sport.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

They say honesty is the best policy and it was interesting to note some total honesty in front of the Huntingdon Stewards yesterday (6^th Jan).

The Stewards were interested in the running of Second Brook in the Novices’s Hurdle and when they spoke to the jockey, Peter Hatton, he responded he had been told to “give the horse an educational ride” this was confirmed by the trainers representative.

Whilst in no way condoning schooling in public, how refreshing it is to actually hear a “confession” when caught out.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this new policy of openness extended right across the sport – then again I think there is more chance of my wish list above coming to fruition.

I also had to smile when I saw the Chairman of the Huntingdon Stewards was Tommy Cooper.

How did they come to their decision – just like that!!!

~~~~~

It’s a shame the televising of Stewards Enquiries is not more widespread. I would have loved to have seen the Stewards Enquiry at Kempton on Wednesday evening.

In case you have not seen it there was an objection in one of the races where the winner, Caprio, tried to give the runner-up, Jake The Snake, a love bite on his neck as they approached the line.

As only a nose separated the duo the rider of the runner-up raised an objection.

It must have been an interesting enquiry, especially as it was the horse who was the miscreant and not the rider - would the Stewards have interviewed the horse?

Unfortunately, at the time of writing, the Stewards report is not available online, I look forward to reading it with interest.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 2011 racing year got off to a miserable start at Cheltenham on New Years Day, with the terrible accident that befell Joe Lively.

There was a lot of ill-informed criticism on the internet, specifically attacking Colin Tizzard for letting Joe Lively run as a 12-year-old. I think that criticism is unjustified.

What happened to Joe Lively did not happen because he was a 12-year-old, it happened because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was simply a racing accident, which could have happened to any horse in any race.

What made it worse was it happened to a popular horse, at a prominent meeting and immediately in front of the packed stands.

It was a horrible accident, I have to confess it was one of the worse injuries I have seen on a racecourse for many a long day. I certainly regret panning my binoculars back to check how he was – I felt physically sick when I saw his injury.

Sadly though, it is a fact of life of National Hunt racing. It does not mean we do not care, the day people stop caring is the day we should pack up the sport and go home.

It is grossly unfair to attack Tizzard for running the horse and if people really cannot accept such incidents then they should, perhaps, find another sport to follow.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On a personal note I was looking forward to a better 2011 after 2010 was easily the worse one of my life.

13 really was an unlucky number last year was we worked out 13 people we know died during the year, including my Dad.

Just when I thought 2011 could not be any worse, it does get worse.

As I write this, my best friend’s wife is in a hospice with days, possibly only hours left to live. (I am writing this to try and keep my mind off things)

She is only 48 years old and they have two lovely daughters age 13 & 9, life is so, so unfair.

Twelve years ago she was diagnosed with breast cancer but fought it and had been “clear” for the last ten years.

Then early last month they discovered the cancer had returned, this time in her liver and elsewhere.

Initially the prognosis was she could well have five years left but she has deteriorated rapidly to reach the current situation.

It is strange I have lived fifty odd years without having to deal with cancer first hand, as it were.

My father was the first person I had seen die from the disease and it was an horrific experience, watching him deteriorate and end up effectively stripped of his dignity. At least he lived to a good age, he was 85 when he passed away.

No dear, lovely Jules is going through exactly the same thing but is seems so much worse somebody her age has to go through that. I cannot even begin to comprehend how my friend is feeling, how his daughters are.

I can only hope the end now comes quickly and peacefully for her.

I will never understand why life can be so cruel.

One thing is for certain though, events like this certainly put a bunch of horses running round a field into some sort of perspective.