A Matter Of Perception

In this day and age of 24 hour rolling news and the all pervasive internet, perception can be as, if not more, important than substance, something which has been illustrated on more than one occasion in our sport this past week.

The two most striking illustrations, and no pun is intended, surround Jason Maguire’s whip use and the running of Saturday’s Eider Chase at Newcastle. Let’s look at the latter first.

One of the longest races in the calendar the Eider was run last Saturday in appalling conditions, the heavy going taking its toll on the runners with only, eventually, three horses finishing and all three finishers barely able to clamber over the final fence.

It did not look good, in fact it was very ugly and it was the sort of race which provides plenty of ammunition to those who wish to attack this sport of ours.

I am always ready and willing to fight racings corner but I have to confess even I struggle to ”justify” the sport when a race like this one takes place.

However just because a race looks ugly it does not mean we have to lurch into a knee-jerk reaction and begin making rash decisions which will ultimately be to the detriment of racing.

The bottom line is all the horses have come out of the race seemingly without any adverse effects, although this would only be finally confirmed after the runners have reappeared on course again.    

Questions were and rightly asked regarding Richie McGraths ride on Morgan Be, who was initially pulled-up  before the last, before being put back into the race to finish third.

Perhaps there should be consideration towards extending the no-remounting rule to also include not re-joining a race once a horse has been pulled up, although judging when a horse is pulled up is not black and white.

Comparisons have been made with Red Marauder’s Grand National win, as if that particular race was acceptable, it wasn’t it was equally as bad. The difference between 2001 and 2011 is the proliferation of the internet and the ability for people to comment openly. Whereas in 2001 most of the criticism was confined to the pub or the odd letter to the Editor, now we have instant opinion and reaction.   

Some are advocating reducing the distance of the long distance races, I do not hold with that argument. These extreme distance races do have a place in the racing calendar.

The only aspect I would question is should these marathon contests be allowed to be run in extreme conditions? I choose my wording carefully when I say extreme conditions.

Should there be a rule that races of four miles or more are not run if the going conditions are heavy?

Likewise should there not also be a rule that races longer than three miles are not run in the summer when temperatures exceed 25 degrees? 

In truth I do not know the answer. It truly is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If changes are made, the sport is emasculated, it is seen to pander to the namby-pamby, politically correct brigade who would like to see us return to the puritanical days of Cromwell. A world where all risk is eliminated and life would be so grey and dull.

On the other hand we cannot ignore the fact we do live in a world where, rightly or wrongly and I would suggest the latter to be the case, perception is King.

Saturday’s race, shown on terrestrial television, was undeniably a poor advertisement for the sport and no matter how much we supporters drone on about it being a test of stamina and horsemanship, to the outside, casual observer it looked cruel.

As I have said this is a very difficult problem to address and one to which there is no correct answer.

Another controversy this week surrounds Jason Maguire and his use of the whip on Cool Mission at Doncaster on Wednesday. Basically he was banned for seven days for a) marking his horse when using the whip and b) using the whip with excessive frequency.

The seven day ban means he will miss the opening day of the Cheltenham Festival and a potentially lucrative ride on Peddlers Cross in the Champion Hurdle.  

There are some of my colleagues, whose views I normally respect, who say it is unfair Maguire is missing the opening day of the Festival. Indeed there are even those who question the fairness of the rule around horses being marked.

Yes some horses do mark more easily than others but if a horse is marked then it is also patently clear the marks are going to hurt.

If a horse is a known “marker” then it is the responsibility of the rider to show more restraint in their use of the whip.

The run of Cool Mission at Doncaster was the horses twelfth and it was the eighth time Maguire had ridden him, so it would be obvious if the horse was one that was easily marked.

Maguire has said, "It's a ridiculous rule and I don't agree with it. Nobody can tell if they are going to mark a horse before they actually do.” Rubbish – is he seriously saying that after riding the horse eight times he does not know if the horse will be marked or not?

If you have not already watched Maguire’s ride on Cool Mission then I suggest you visit the ATR web site and watch a replay. It was, to coin a phrase from earlier on, an ugly performance by Maguire. His use of the whip was heavy handed.

The bottom line is Maguire is a professional jockey, he broke the rules and has been punished accordingly.

The fact Maguire is missing the first day of the Festival is his fault and his alone, he was not forces to break the rules.

Invariably there will be complaints from the pocket talkers who have backed Peddlers Cross and Donald McCain has adopted the clichéd “my jockeys are being persecuted” approach.

Maguire is appealing against his ban. It will be a travesty if the ban is reduced, it will send out a message that allowing jockeys to ride in a big race is more important than the welfare of horses. Indeed I would actually be delighted if, after the appeal, Maguire’s ban is increased rather than decreased . . . . now that would send out the right message.

Why can’t Maguire hold up his hands, accept he is wrong and take his punishment like a man? He would ear far more respect if he took that course, instead he simply looks like a man desperate to ride in the Champion Hurdle at any price.

He is a young jockey, with great potential, who will have many more chances to ride in the   Champion Hurdle. He would be better served accepting his punishment and learning from it.

The build-up to the Cheltenham Festival seems to drag on longer and longer each year, to the point that even its most fanatical fans like myself tend get fed up.

For me there are two important dates which really tell me the Festival is here.

The first was the week before last when a padded envelope with a Cheltenham post mark dropped through my letterbox, containing my badge for the four days of the Festival.   

The second and for me the real starting gun is this Wednesday’s press conference at the course, where the weights are announced. This is the time we can seriously begin looking at all the races over the four days. 

Bring it on. 

Sunday Afternoon Television Anybody

Racing For Change (RfC) has been like the curates egg, good in places.

Some of their simpler ideas have been the best, being of a certain age and with my eyesight not as good as it used to be I love the larger saddlecloths. I’m not so sure about the US style coloured saddlecloths as adopted initially at Kempton but also recently making an appearance at Carlisle. There are one of those initiatives which need to be universally adopted or not used at all, otherwise people will not become accustomed to them.

I loved their free admission initiative last year, which seemed to be well received by most of the courses and racegoers, although it is not a model which will work everywhere. So why has it not been followed up? I understand there is another series planned again this year but a whole year before following it up!!

I also give 2½ cheers to Champions Day. A good concept in principle and moving the meeting from Newmarket to Ascot is an excellent idea. However I do have serious reservations about the impact it may have on the existing “unofficial” Champions Day already held at Longchamp the first Sunday in October, my favourite single days flat racing of the year.

Of course RFC have had some turkeys. The experiment with decimal odds (of which I am an absolute fan by the way) at Ascot was half baked and doomed to fail and probably ended up doing the cause more harm than good.

The launch of the RfC  initiative did little to engender hope, with the creation of these mythical racegoers they were trying to attract . . .  oh dear what a PR disaster that was.

I also have doubts about the current fixation of attempting to attract students to the races but will reserve judgment on that one.

RfC are also about to look at getting improved radio coverage for the sport, no bad thing and they could do a great deal worse than trying to get the morning racing bulletin re-instated of Radio Football, aka Five Live . . . . now that would be the ultimate test of their ability.

So all in all RfC has probably done OK, although it has often fallen into the typical marketing trap of perhaps being too blue sky and too disconnected on occasion.

One area I am surprised RfC has not looked at more closely is Sunday racing.

Sunday 26^th July 1992 was a memorable day as it saw the first ever Sunday meeting in this country. It was no ordinary race meeting though as the puritanical rules in force those days did not allow betting on a Sunday – how quaint.

Savoyard, ridden by Walter Swinburn and trained by Michael Jarvis was the first horse to win an officially sanctioned Sunday race under rules in the United Kingdom.

There were howls of objections from various quarters. From trainers and stable staff protesting about having to work an extra day, through to the predictable objections on religious grounds.

The religious objections always made me smile as both Ireland and France, staunch Catholic states, far more religious than Britain, had raced on Sunday’s for years without any apparent conflict of interest.     

It needed a change of legislation to allow Sunday betting and on 7^th May 1995 Newmarket hosted the first Sunday meeting with betting where Peace Envoy was the 11/4 winner of the opening race, trained by Henry Cecil and ridden by Willie Ryan.

In those early days Sunday meetings were haphazard affairs, almost a random occurrence.

Now there is racing every Sunday of the year (apart from Christmas Day) and the only course not to have so far raced on a Sunday is Cartmel, although Epsom have not raced on a Sunday since 1998.

The trouble with Sunday racing is it is generally low quality fare on offer. Yes there are exceptions, the 1,000 Guineas is run on a Sunday and there are a spattering of top races throughout the year.

However Sunday racing is not being used to its full potential.

When top class races are staged on a Sunday the attendance figures hold up exceptionally well and even with the generally sub-standard racing Sunday’s often give courses higher attendances than average.

 If the standard of racing was increased the effect on attendances will be even more marked boosting income for the courses and, should it remain in place, increased Levy income as well.

Of course there will be objectors.

The “God squad” will complain about racing on a Sunday. As stated earlier it does not seem to be an issue in places like Ireland, France or Malta where church going and religious adherence  is far stronger than in the UK.  At the end of the day if practicing Christians do not wish to go racing on a Sunday nobody is forcing them to attend and, conversely, why should non-Christians be denied their pleasures because it offends some?

There may be some trainers who do not wish to run horses on a Sunday for religious reasons, that is their prerogative. If that causes a problem for their owners then the owner can either accept the trainers position or they can send their horses to be trained elsewhere.  

Then there is the issue of hours of work for stable staff. With racing already taking place on a Sunday this is arguably a less valid argument now, however I appreciate it does add to the already long hours stable staff work.

I see two possible solutions to this one.

Firstly I would have no great issue with Monday (except where there is a Bank Holiday) being a blank racing day. Now I appreciate the bookmakers, who some may suggest are the de facto controllers of racing, may not be too keen on a blank day.       

In which case the second option may appeal more, again where the Monday is not a Bank Holiday.

If the Sunday meetings are framed to have no more than three meetings but with the racing of a higher quality, as per the Saturday structure, then Monday cards could consist of low grade fixtures.

That way, generally, the bigger trainers would have runners at the Sunday meeting but be far less likely to have runners at the Monday meeting and the trainers of the runners at the low grade Monday meetings would be less likely to have runners on the Sunday.   So giving each set a free day.   OK it is a simplistic viewpoint and I realise some trainers would fall in both camps but no system is perfect.

I would have no objection to the major festivals being moved to include Sunday’s . . .  it has worked with Newmarket’s Guineas meeting.

So why not have a Thursday – Sunday Cheltenham Festival, or a Saturday / Sunday Derby meeting.

Of course some will say we can’t, it’s tradition. “Tradition” is no excuse. Despite the proven economic benefits there are still those who yearn for The Derby to return to its “traditional” Wednesday spot. Perhaps they are the same people who want to see a return to pounds, shillings and pence. Or to women being denied the vote, or only landowners being allowed to vote or children being sent up chimneys . . . . after all weren’t all those “tradition” at some point?

The changes would have to be handled carefully though. For example initially I would still envisage the Derby being run on the Saturday with The Oaks and Coronation Cup being run on the Sunday. However over time as it become accepted that Sunday was the day for big races then I would see no reason why it could not be switched so The Derby is run on the Sunday.

Some would argue for Sunday racing to be a success it would also need terrestrial television coverage.

If that is a valid argument then it need not be a major stumbling block. Traditionally terrestrial television coverage has, over the years, been a choice between BBC, ITV and Channel Four with just a limited number of channels.

By next year the whole country will have switched to digital, giving far more channels on terrestrial television.

If terrestrial coverage is considered to be so vital then with the extra capacity it should be simple enough for one of the existing terrestrial broadcasters to find a channel to broadcast Sunday afternoon racing..

The BBC, for example could use the BBC3 or BBC4 channels, currently not used in the afternoons. Similarly with four channels available whet is to stop ITV returning to broadcasting racing?

Or, what is to stop a new terrestrial broadcaster stepping in? Even with its current funding model, why couldn’t ATR broadcast on a free to air terrestrial digital channel?   Granted it would be more difficult for RUK with their subscription model.

Of course, once digital switchover is complete, will terrestrial coverage of the sport be as important?

Instead of the current four or five channels, all households will have access to up to 50 terrestrial TV channels, with that competition how much of an audience will racing get and consequently would the value of terrestrial cover not diminish for sponsors?

How would new viewers be attracted to the sport?

This brings us neatly full circle as the future of terrestrial television coverage of the sport is something RfC are going to have to look at very seriously.

Finally congratulations to Richard and Sarah Hoiles on the birth of Thomas last Tuesday morning just 3½ hours too late to be a Valentines baby.

. . . . but the Levy was dry.

Writing these brain dumps is something akin to waiting for a bus, you wait ages for some inspiration then everything happens at once.

Yesterday saw the Governments verdict on the latest Levy and it came up with an estimate of between £73.7m and £80.8m, effectively an uplift of 7.5%, plus a decrease in the threshold whereby bookmakers pay a reduced levy.

I have to say it is not very often I agree with politicians, however I agree wholeheartedly with the closing comments of the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, where he said:-

“With the determination concluded, I would like to re-state my disappointment that the relevant parties were not themselves able to come to terms and I would strongly encourage them to develop a less adversarial relationship going forward. I have tried to be fair by listening to the advice of the Independent members of the Levy Board and I will continue to be guided by their advice in future years until what should be a straightforward commercial negotiation can be taken permanently out of the hands of Ministers. “

I would go as far as to say it not a disappointment, it is a disgrace that racing is unable sort out its own finances.

Although it does have to be acknowledged any discussions between the racing authorities and the bookmakers is akin to a 45 rated handicapper taking on Sea The Stars.

On the one hand we have British racing, a sport which has no cohesive structure, a mish-mash of various self-interest groups, all of whom have differing, often conflicting, priorities. On the other hand we have the bookmakers, multi-million pound businesses, run by financially astute individuals who know who to run successful, profitable, organisations.

If you want to play a fun game get a blank sheet of A4 and write a list of all the organisations and groups involved in racing and, when complete, ask yourself who actually controls all these groups, who speaks or acts for a unified Team Racing?

Was the “Racing United” initiative on your list.

For something that is meant to unite the sport it does not appear to have been that successful. All it happens to be is a window dressing enterprise. Flogging the same dead horse that the Levy is unfair on racing and the big nasty bookmakers are “robbing” the sport.

According to its website it has attracted 1,502 online and 1,157 physical signatures for its campaign. Now add up all the numbers who work in racing, who go racing, who visit betting shops – all locations where the petition has been available and you will see what a waste of money the exercise has been.

Bookmakers are not robbing the sport, it’s just they are more financially astute and are able to outflank racing at every turn.

When it comes to funding those who run the sport are riding a one trick pony, it is the Levy or nothing as far as they are concerned.

Racings negotiators seem unable to accept the Levy is anachronistic, out-dated and not fit for purpose. It is indeed questionable whether it was fit for purpose when it was first introduced.

It could equally be argued the Levy is grossly unfair for bookmakers and for other sports.

A question I have asked many times, yet nobody in racing has ever been prepared to answer, is “why should racing alone benefit from a bookmakers levy?”

Why shouldn’t football get a levy? Why shouldn’t the BBC get a levy on money wagered on programs like Strictly Come Dancing?

The Levy in intrinsically wrong and unfair, it also allows for lazy financial management within the sport.

Why should racings bean counters make any effort in seeking proper commercial funding when funding is more or less handed over on a gilded plate?

Racing needs to negotiate a new funding structure that is fit for purpose in the 21^st century. One which stands up in the competitive commercial world.

It should not rely on what is effectively an outmoded tax, nor should it rely on Government intervention when it proves itself to be incapable of even negotiating within a framework it supposedly knows and espouses.

Racing for Change, now there is a name to conjure with. Instead of tinkering around the peripheries and introducing larger number cloths, trying to attract Brian, Fred or whatever other fictitious racegoers it wishes to make up, perhaps it should spend time looking at the fundamentals of the sport.

Perhaps Racing For Change should look at creating a unified structure to run the sport like the multi million pound business it is and not some elitist club.

Of course it will not happen as it is an arm of Racing Enterprises, which is owned by two of the interested factions in the sport, even though they have conflicting priorities.

Interestingly it is the same two factions who are at loggerheads in the on-going tariff dispute, how will Racing Enterprises spin that one?

Racing needs financial and marketing teams who understand what is required and who can deliver what is needed.

It does not need negotiating teams who stick their heads in the sand, who go into negotiations with the bookmakers with only a well rehearsed, obsolete, Plan A and no plan B to fall back on.

It does not need leaders who put their own egos above the interests of the sport . . . Paul Roy.

You think I am being harsh?

We are talking here about an industry which cannot even give away its terrestrial TV rights for goodness sake.

An industry where a broadcaster has to be paid to show the sport on terrestrial television.

Yes, even Channel Four negotiators can run rings around racings great and good.

The BBC have been criticised for reducing their coverage of racing. Who can blame them? Why should they pay public money to show a sport, when their rival is actually being paid to broadcast the sport 52 weeks a year? Is that a level playing field?

Can you seriously imagine the Premier League even contemplating turning to Sky and saying we will pay you to show our matches?

It is a joke. Much as I love this sport, one wonders if it deserves to survive the way it is currently structured and managed, although I use the latter term in its loosest sense.

No business (and racing is a business like any other) has a divine right to survive. It has to adapt, it has to live within its means.

No business should go running to Government for help just because those are supposed to manage it do not have the wherewithal or ability to seemingly organise even the proverbial piss up in a brewery.

I sincerely hope the Government has the balls to turn round and say the 50^th Levy scheme will be the final scheme and it is up to racing to sort out its own finances going forward.

Racing needs to join the real world. It needs to know the full worth of what it has and to then exploit that worth ruthlessly.

The halcyon days of racing just being a gentleman’s club are long gone, the sooner those who are charged with running the sport realise that the better it will be for all concerned.

My final comment on financing relates to the tariff protests organised by the Horsemen’s Group.

So they want greater prize money in the sport – well there’s a surprise!

Presumably they accept the economic reality there is less money coming into the sport as there is less money in the economy in general, yet there has not been a commensurate reduction in the fixture list.

Umm doesn’t basic common sense then suggest there will be less money per race to go around?

Instead of going for headline catching, yet ultimately pointless tariff protests, perhaps they should address the more fundamental issues of the structure and future financing of the sport. Including ensuring the fixture list is cut back to a realistic level to reflect the funding available.

Oh silly me . . . the Horsemen’s Group is one of those vested interest parties who are more interested in their own narrow self-interests than the wider interests of the sport.

A perfect illustration of all that is wrong with the sport.

The Morning After The Day Before

After deciding not to go to Leopardstown yesterday I had the relatively simple choice of going to either Newbury or Warwick instead.

In the end I plumped for Warwick, simply on the basis with Newbury being such a big meeting all the great and good of racing journalism would be there and the press room would be full to bursting.

Whereas at Warwick it was a near deserted press room with three of us there, plus Stewart Machin popping in between races.

As I write this the morning after the nightmare events in the Newbury parade ring I am pleased I made the decision to go to Warwick. Yes, part of me thinks it would have been a good professional challenge reporting from the scene of a breaking news story but being close to a story can cloud ones judgement.

One aspect that particularly struck me is the incident occurred pretty close to where I do my paddock observations at Newbury. So there is a strong chance, had I been there, I would have witnessed the incident first hand.

Would that have been a good thing? Clearly from a purely emotional aspect it certainly would not, how could anybody witness such an event first hand and not be impacted?

Moreover I think having witnessed such an event first hand would make reporting on what happened all the more difficult. Yes, it would have been possible to report what happened from an involved perspective but that would also make looking at the wider picture much more difficult as there would have been too much emotional baggage attached and I know I would have struggled to be objective.

That is why I have greatest admiration for the broadcasters who were able to report on such a horrifying incident so well. They provided understanding and informative coverage striking a great balance conveying the tragedy of what happened, without over sensationalising events.

Particular praise should go in the direction of Nick Luck who, once again, showed what an excellent broadcaster he is – dare I say it was his finest hour.

Mention should also be given to the BBC’s Cornelius Lysaght. I know I have been a strong critic of some of Five Lives racing coverage but, credit where credit is due, Lysaght’s description of the events he witnessed in the parade ring was radio reporting at its very best, you almost felt you were there and the tone was spot on.

Investigations are still on-going and whilst all the known evidence so far points to an underground electrical cable it would not be constructive or helpful to speculate further. Enquiries are still on-going both within and outside racing and in due course I have no doubt all will become clear.

Lessons will clearly be learned but I believe it will transpire this was a terrible freak accident.

Unbelievably, although sadly not unsurprisingly, I have seen suggestions online that the incident was no accident but a case of deliberate sabotage . . . . you really do wonder if inmates in the asylums should be allowed internet access?

I do have three points to look at further concerning yesterdays events.

Should the first race have gone ahead?

On the whole I believe those responsible handled this unique situation as well as they could in the circumstances, the one exception being running the first race.

As we now know the decision was taken to run the first race, albeit 20 minutes late. This happening after one trainer, Nicky Henderson, went to the start and decided to withdraw his runner, Kid Cassidy, who had been affected by events in the parade ring.

There was clearly confusion as to what had happened in the parade ring and the first race not have taken place until it was clear what had happened.

In an interview stipendiary steward Paul Barton, speaking about the decision to run the first race, said, "They were extremely unusual circumstances. We were reacting to things as they occurred at the time - we didn't know if the horses had had heart attacks or what had happened.”

The final part of the statement is the most pertinent “we didn't know if the horses had had heart attacks or what had happened”

They did not know what had happened - in which case the decision to race was crass.

What would have happened if either Kid Cassidy or The Merry Giant (another horse involved in the parade ring and reported by connections to be “badly traumatised” after the race) had collapsed during or after the race?

Barton also said, “…..after the race, as we got more information, the decision-making process changed."

Doesn’t common sense dictate that if you do not have the information then you err on the side of caution?

There were suggestions regarding a possible electrical cause before the first race was run, that must have rung alarm bells.

Barton added, "The horses were examined by the veterinary surgeons before the race,” but my understanding was this was only a heart rate check. How thorough were the examinations?

The bottom line is they did not know what killed the two horses in the parade ring, nor what led to two other horses to stumble, yet the race was allowed to proceed.

The decision to run the first race was, at best, crass bad judgement, indeed I would go as far as to suggest negligent as it raises serious horse welfare issues.

Undoubtedly the BHA will enquire into the circumstances, however I also believe an external enquiry is also required and I trust this is a matter which will be investigated by the RSPCA.

Were broadcasters right to show footage of the incident?

Another topic which set the message boards and Twitterland alight.

For me this is a simple issue, what happened at Newbury was a breaking news story, with relevance to a wider audience. The pictures put the incident into a wider contest and clearly illustrated what happened.

I have no doubt the audience figures will show people will have switched to Channel 4 Racing as the afternoon progressed and word spread, hence the need to show the incident on more than one occasion.

It was not a pretty sight, it looked horrible but that is what happened, it cannot be ignored.

Should broadcasters not show news coverage for fear it may offend somebody? If that were the case the only pictures we would probably see in news bulletins would be of sheep frolicking in fields – then again even that may well offend somebody.

News is reporting of what happens in the real world, it should not be sanitised.

Are those complaining about the pictures being shown also saying broadcasters should not have shown pictures of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, or show film of JFK being assassinated?

I would suggest the planes hitting the Twin Towers is far more distressing than what happened yesterday.

Some complained the incident was shown repeatedly and they found it upsetting – my question to them would be, if you find it so distressing then why were you watching it repeatedly?

You will find your television has an off or channel change switch.

Are there double standards with some of the reporting?

Some final thoughts to ponder - which I make without comment.

Two horses died at Newbury in unusual circumstances and it becomes a major news story not only within racing but on the wider news agenda. It even made news bulletins overseas as well.

Also yesterday afternoon, two horses died at Warwick and at least two died at Leopardstown.

Are the losses at Newbury any greater than the losses at Warwick and Leopardstown?

Shouldn’t the same amount of passion and column inches be dedicated to the deaths of the other four horses?

Are deaths in-running just an accepted part of our sport?