Help Please

A personal request if you will indulge me please.

In the last six months I lost my Dad and a dear friend, Jules Shepherd, to cancer - in Jules case she was only 48 years old.

There has been a great deal of progress in researching this terrible disease but there is still a long way to go.

My wife, Ann, is taking part in a Race For Life run on 11th April, to raise funds into cancer research - can you please find your way to sponsoring her, no matter how big or small your contribution is every penny helps.

Remember one in three of us will suffer from cancer at some time in our life . . . . thank you.

http://www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/annostermeyer0858

Free Racing and Wind Measurements

Towcester racecourse seems to be gaining something of a reputation as a maverick racecourse. Be it breaking ties with the Racecourse Association, suggesting they stage their races without whips or being the first course to offer free admission as the norm as opposed to an occasional offering.

Their announcement that they wish to stage races without whips from October this year has been met with derision in most quarters and it will be interesting to see if the proposal actually has legs and actually come to fruition.

By contrast their free admission policy has been widely welcomed especially by racegoers and it has undoubtedly seen an increase in the numbers at the course. 

I say free admission policy as it is interesting to note the admission this season has not been a free as in previous seasons.

This year Towcester decided to charge admission for all of their May meetings and the effect on attendances has been most interesting. Although it has to be added this analysis is based on observation rather than hard facts as, unusually, Towcester have been very slow in releasing their attendance figures for May.

I have attended two of the three May meetings held so far and the crowds, if that is not too much of an exaggeration, are almost the lowest I have seen there all season – this at evening meetings which, in the past few years, have been extremely popular.  

The only meeting with fewer attendees was the additional fixture in January, which was staged at short notice with very little publicity.

The weather for the May evening meetings was not inclement and the reduction in numbers can only really be attributed to Towcester’s decision to charge admission.

The irony is Towcester were only charging £10 admission, which still compares favourably with other courses. The trouble is racegoers have now come to expect free admission at Towcester and when it is not there they vote with their feet.

Indeed some racegoers took their protest a little too far. I heard of one potential racegoer who had driven 100 miles to get to the course only to turn round and refuse to pay the £10 admission. It may have been a protest on a point of principle but having spent so much on petrol it seems churlish not to pay £10 admission.

Now Towcester have not covered themselves in glory on this one as their website  highlights the free admission and whilst admittedly noting the paid for meetings in May the detail was, how can one put it, subtle and easily missed.

The argument in favour of free admission is the loss of gate money is mitigated by increased revenue, i.e. profit, from the sale of food, drink and racecards etc.

Again no figures are forthcoming but I wonder if the gate money taken by Towcester at these paid meetings made up for the costs of additional gate staff and the loss of revenue from sales of food, drink and racecards?

Talking to one person at the course they were saying their takings were markedly down at the paid meetings, when compared with the free meetings.

People do like to feel they are getting “something for nothing” and once they have had something for nothing they react even more strongly when it is seemingly taken away, which is why I think Towcester have been badly hit by their decision to charge admission for the May meetings.

It will be very interesting to see what the courses policy will be in the 2011-2012 season.

The Racing For Change ‘free racing month’ in April saw an additional 63,000 racegoers attending, with research indicating half were new racegoers.

What does this prove?

Well it certainly shows people like a bargain.

Will it ultimately attract more long term racegoers?

Research carried out by RfC indicates 80% of those who attended are ‘very likely” to return again, with a further 16% quite likely to return. On the face of it impressive figures, however I am minded of the old adage “lies, damned lies and statistics.”

How was the question actually phrased? Was it just are you likely to return again or was it are you likely to return again, even if you have to pay £15 admission? I would suggest the answer to the former would elicit a much more positive response than the latter.       

In the world of athletics for a sprint record to be ratified there are strict rules about permitted wind speeds which may or may not assist the athlete. For example if a following wind is greater than a certain amount then a record will not stand.

In the past few weeks several track records have been broken in racing yet many have been wind assisted. Now I agree only a few anoraks really care about course records but many form students do pay attention to times, be they sectional times or whole race times.

There are already some complex formula applied to factor in going conditions when it comes to time assessments, but there is nothing in place to take account of the wind.

If the wind is deemed capable of assisting a human athlete, who has a relatively small surface area when compared with a horse and jockey, then surely wind must be a major factor in horse racing.

Currently the form book has vague comments like “wind, brisk, half against” but what does that mean – very little in fact. More often than not it is a finger in the air job, literally.

Yesterday at Brighton we had a huge debate about the wind and even though it was blowing a gale the impact of buildings made it difficult to accurately assess direction, yet alone speed.

Would it be too much to ask the racing authorities to invest some money in wind 

measuring equipment so a definitive reading can be taken for every race? It is not rocket science, athletics meetings manage it and I am sure their budget is smaller than racings.

Would it not be more meaningful to invest in something like wind measuring equipment, which has a tangible benefit, rather than investing in gimmicks which may or may not attract a few more racegoers.

Bans, Commentators and Colours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Whip and Frankel (not related)

Since my last brain dump plenty has happened in the world of racing.

Dominant has been the debate surrounding the use of the whip and, frankly, neither side have really done their cause much good with some very emotive and entrenched views and some of the arguments put forward have been frankly ludicrous.

One argument, in particular, which made me smile was that if we were to introduce a whip ban it would mean we would be out of line with the rest of the racing world, a fair point. Yet some of those making that argument were the ones who were up in arms when the draw numbering system was changed to bring us in line with the rest of the world and the very same people were arguing alignment was no reason to change. It’s funny how an argument can be turned around to suit ones current stance.

I have to say I don’t hold any strong views either way and I think the current rules are just about right. Where I do have an issue is the punishment for whip misuse does not act as a sufficient deterrent.

The punishment should act as a deterrent.

I had long advocated disqualifying horses where there has been whip abuse, however it was pointed out to me by a leading administrator in the sport that introducing disqualification would give a relatively easy way for a jockey to deliberately lose a race if they were that way inclined and I have to admit they do have a point.

I have since heard two other alternatives, both of which have some credibility.

The first is to extend the current “palpable” non-runner where, if a horse wins by virtue of misuse of the whip, the stewards would have the power to declare the winner a non-runner, in which way punters would get their money refunded and connections would not get any prize money.

The second option would be for the result to stand but for all prize money to be withheld.

Neither option is perfect, indeed is any solution perfect, however whilst not eradicating the problem completely hitting (no pun intended) connections in the pocket will certainly focus the mind and those riders with a track record of heavy handed whip use may well find their employment prospects become limited.

On the subject of suspect rides it seems the sport may be under the spotlight again as the BHA carry out further investigations into possible race fixing. A number of names, including a high profile rider, have been bandied about. The BHA have been coming under pressure to reveal all as soon as possible. Bearing in mind the problems with previous investigations I would much prefer the BHA took more time, obtained water tight evidence and make sure there is a strong case, rather than acting quickly and getting it wrong.

Last weekend it was great to see racing making the headlines for all the right reasons. I defy anybody who saw Frankel’s demolition job in the 2000 Guineas not to be impressed. 

I watched the race at Uttoxeter and I have to confess it was the first time I have seen a jump crowd watching a flat race in near silence and then breaking out into spontaneous applause as the winner crossed the line. As one of my colleagues, who had been around a long time, said “it was a privilege to watch that.”

There was a great deal of subsequent debate as to where he went next, with a large number of observers wanting him to head for the Derby.

I must confess I would like to have seen him go to Epsom, although I have to confess that was my heart talking. My head was saying going to Epsom would be a mistake as his free running style would not be suited to the extreme test of stamina offered by Epsom. It is becoming clear he is not the sort of horse who can be settled quietly and The Derby is not a race which generally lends itself to such tactics.

Clearly his trainer Henry Cecil, who has probably forgotten more about training horses than most hacks will ever know, also concurs and it seems Frankel is going to be following the mile route this season.

It is going to be a great summer in the mile division and it will be interesting to see how other outfits, especially Ballydoyle, approach Frankel’s future races this season. Methinks there could be some very tactical contests coming up and some very interesting use of pacemakers.