More Rule Tweaking

Following on from yet another change to the whip rules may I suggest a few more rule changes, which I believe will help improve our sport.

One important change, already being discussed on the back of the recent changes, is the introduction of centralised stewarding.

For too long the sport has relied on well-meaning amateur stewards who have varying levels of competencies, from pretty good right through to the inexplicable.   In recent years they have been supplemented by stipendiary stewards, employees of the BHA who are supposed to bring some consistency to proceedings.

Now that has worked but only to a limited extent. As with the amateur stewards the standard of the stipes is variable. Most are good but one or two have gained a reputation as being out to make a name for themselves or have been perceived as being biased against particular riders.

The stipes also work on a regional basis and this has led to a situation where, for example, stewarding in the north is perceived to be much stricter than in the south. Certainly many northern based jockeys are of the view they are punished more harshly riding in the north than had they committed the same offence in the south.

The answer is simple – have one amateur and one professional steward on course to deal with local administrative issues but have a central panel, based at BHA headquarters, to deal with any disciplinary enquiries arising during the meeting. Having a central panel should provide a greater consistency and remove the current postcode lottery where different panels will reach different verdicts for what is basically the same offence.

 

Next up is a further "tweak" to the whip rules, which should have been implemented from day one, and it is for serious breaches to also involve withholding not only the rider’s prize money but also the prize money from the trainers and owners as well. That would concentrate the minds more and would discourage connections from encouraging their jockey to adopt a “win at all costs” policy.

The BHA tried to address this by prohibiting connections from “compensating” riders who had been penalised their prize money, however that is a wholly unworkable regulation and could be circumvented so ridiculously easily that it is not worth the paper it is written on.  

There is another change I would make would to penalties. I would scrap the provision whereby Group One race days are automatically excluded from “minor” bans, which can be perceived as being somewhat perverse, and all bans will run on consecutive days.

However I would also offer a “pay-off” against the change.

I would retain the default situation, whereby any ban comes into force 14 days after the ban is given. However I would also allow a rider, at their own discretion and for bans of seven days or less, to have the ban commence at an earlier date, to ameliorate the impact of the ban.

So, for example,  if a ban starting in 14 days time meant a rider missing part of a major meeting, the rider, if they so wished, could choose to have the ban commence earlier, even the day after it was given, should they choose to accept the ban.

This should help reduce the number of, frankly, pointless appeals which always seem to spring up in the build-up to the big festivals.

My next change is an administrative change, whereby trainers should lodge a copy of the riding instructions given to the rider with the clerk of the scales at the point where the jockey weighs out. To ensure confidentiality they could be submitted in sealed envelopes.

The declaration should be signed by the trainer (or their representative) and the rider. Should there then be an enquiry into the running of a particular horse then the written instructions can form part of the enquiry.  It should resolve some of the ambiguity around riding instructions in non-trier cases.

There are quite a few other changes I can think of but these will do for starters.  

RIP BHA

Back in September last year I wrote, following the announcement of Paul Bittar’s appointment:-

“Whilst I wish Bittar well in his new role, he is walking into an impossible job and he is taking on a poisoned chalice.”

It seems the first sip he has taken from the chalice contains hemlock and yesterday’s announcement regarding a near total capitulation to the whip rule changes is another nail in the coffin of British racing.

What I find particularly nauseating is the “I told you so” attitude and rejoicing of those who opposed the changes, they seem to think “common sense” has prevailed and they have won some kind of magnificent victory.

Rejoicing at yesterday’s decision is incredibly myopic and fails to take into consideration the long term impact of the decision.  

In terms of the whip issues themselves.

The jockeys had asked for more clarification as to what would be an acceptable use of the whip, the new rules provided that to a certain extent, although there was always scope for some adjustment.

The reality is, what the jockeys did not want were the much overdue effective punishments for breaking the whip rules, they wanted it both ways. Let’s face it, asking jockeys to support stronger penalties for whip breaches is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

So it was no great surprise that the riders were up in arms when, finally, there were strong punishments introduced for what is effectively cheating.

There was an outcry last week when AP McCoy was banned for excessive whip use when getting Prince Of Pirates up to dead-heat with Brackloon High at Leicester.

Many complained that it was wrong to ban the champion jockey for such a ride. Why?

McCoy broke the rules, as a result of his breaking the rules his horse managed to dead-heat when, in all probability it would have finished second.

“Ah, but the rules are flawed”, is the response of the apologists - It doesn’t matter if the rules are right or wrong, those are the rules which are in place. We cannot pick and choose which rules and laws we choose to follow.

I happen to think the 50mph limit on the A34 through Oxford is pointless and stupid, but if I get caught exceeding that speed limit I somehow think my saying “but I don’t think the limit is right” would hold much sway with the powers that be – and rightly so.

So are those saying McCoy should not have been punished also suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to win at all costs and escape with impunity?

Are they saying McCoy is a multiple champion jockey and he should not be treated so badly? That argument could well be turned round to say as multiple champion jockey McCoy should know better and should, therefore, be treated more harshly.

Then what about connections of Brackloon High, whose jockey remained within the rules but they still had to forfeit outright first place.

If racing wants to endorse a win at all costs, do what you want with just a slapped wrist policy then I want nothing more to do with the sport.

So what about these new changes?

Well for a start they are not going to bring any clarity to the situation and by handing the decision making back to local stewards we will see a return to inconsistency and even more ambiguity.

I wonder how long it will be before supporters of yesterday’s changes will be on their high horses again when the stewards begin making inconsistent decision – I would wager not very long at all.

Will I then be allowed to call them hypocrites?

Such a proposal could only work if we have centralised professional stewards.

Stewarding needs a root and branch change if there is to be any prospect of these new changes working.

The current system of Stewarding does not work and whilst the introduction of Stipes has partly improved the situation, it has also introduced some additional problems.

The quality of the Stipes is far too variable, whilst some are exceptionally good there are one or two who are simply on an ego / power trip.

There would still need to be an on-course Stewarding presence to deal with day-to-day matters as they arise but all disciplinary matters should be dealt with by the central panel. Then the proposed changes may possibly work.

The technology is available and it isn’t rocket science.

One thing is for sure, yesterday’s announcement will do absolutely nothing to bring an end to the whip debate and anybody who thinks it will do is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The decision plays into the hands of those who want to see a total whip ban, even those who want to see the abolition of horse racing period.

However the ramifications of yesterdays decisions goes far beyond the whip debate. It deals a serious, if not fatal blow to the credibility of the administration of the sport in this country.

Even before the whip changes were announced and implemented the BHA had a major credibility issue, the events of the past four months have only served to further undermine their credibility and authority.

If the BHA is to regain any credibility it needs a major overhaul, however even that may not be enough.

Paul Bittar needs to launch an immediate, independent, enquiry into the implementation of the new whip rules. Whatever ones opinion of the rule changes themselves I think it is universally accepted that the timing and method of their introduction was crass.

So far Paul Struthers seems to have been made the scapegoat but that was a case of shooting the messenger, those truly culpable have escaped with impunity. Isn’t there also an irony that the  BHA’s sacrificial lamb then went across to the “other side” and came away with what looks like a victory for the jockeys.

In his infamous interview with Nick Luck on Champions Day the BHA Chairman, Paul Roy, said that as Chairman of the BHA he must assume responsibility for the implementation of the whip rules. After yesterday’s embarrassing capitulation can we expect his resignation today – of course not the man has no honour.          

My fear is no amount of tinkering will dig the BHA out of the hole in which it finds itself.

The whip fiasco has been a distraction but it is but a mere gnat bite compared with some of the other issues the sport is facing.

The biggest issue is the future funding of the sport and, at the risk of repeating myself, the industry and, more specifically, the BHA does not have the ability or wherewithal to negotiate a proper commercial funding model for the industry.

At a time when racing needs strong leadership the BHA has shown itself to be impotent. Yesterday’s capitulation is not something to rejoice about. All it does is underline the lack of direction and leadership in a so called authority that is supposed to run the sport.

Paul Bittar is being lauded as a pragmatic leader, in my eyes he has rolled over and completely kow-towed to the PJA, his credibility is as much in question as the rest of the BHA board.

Whilst I am no fan of the bookmaking industry I can only assume they are absolutely wetting themselves with laughter when they look at the absolute mess in the higher echelons of UK racing.

After all are they not the ones who really run the sport?      

Cynicism, Offshore Bookmakers and Grand National

As I write this on the morning of Friday 17^th January I have to admit to having a bad taste in my mouth and I haven’t even had breakfast yet.

Today should have been a major fund raising day for armed services charities at Sandown Park, however the attempt to raise much needed funds has been seriously undermined by the decision to re-stage last Saturday's Newbury fixture today and Newbury offering free admission.

It seems Newbury and their sponsors Betfair are more interested in marketing gimmicks and making a quick buck than they are on the negative impact they will have elsewhere. Publicly officials at Sandown have maintained a dignified silence but I have hear they are absolutely fuming privately and who can blame them.

There are some who will say the restaging of the Newbury card is a great achievement and in a way it is but it is a pity it has been staged without fully thinking through the consequences.

Why couldn't the Newbury card have been staged on Sunday where it would not have had such a detrimental effect elsewhere?

I would like to think Newbury and Betfair would make a significant contributions to the charities who are going to lose out as a result of their cynical marketing ploy but somehow cannot see it happening.

The recent cold snap has again illustrated how much dependence there is on the so called “all weather” racing, now I make no secret I am no fan of that branch of the sport, however I accept some people do enjoy it and it does serve to help maintain the Levy.

Although why something as discredited as the Levy should be supported is beyond me – it is no longer fit for purpose and anything that actively undermines it should be encouraged.

Anyway I digress as I return to one of my hobby horses, the term “all weather” racing – it isn’t all weather. The meeting at Wolverhampton was abandoned because of snow,not the first time snow has claimed such a meeting. It has been called off because of fog – IT IS NOT ALL WEATHER RACING.

For goodness sake rename it artificial surface racing and do away with this misleading misnomer once and for all.

Newmarket MP Matthew Hancock recently introduced a private members bill to change how money for the discredited Levy is raised. With 18 of the top 20 bookmakers now located offshore he wants the Levy to be paid on a “point of consumption” basis.

Such a proposal is naïve and would not work. With the increasing amount of betting now being executed online it would be incredibly easy to circumvent such a rule. Indeed I would see it as a great business opportunity as I would quite happily market software that could be used to circumvent such a ruling.

Instead of wasting important Parliamentary time introducing this bill the time should be spent abolishing the Levy and making racing negotiate a fair business arrangement without Government intervention.

Another interesting point is the 18 / 20 bookmakers who have moved offshore. If I were a shareholder in either of the duo who have not moved offshore I would be demanding to know why they have not done so. It is the duty of an organisation to maximise profit and shareholder return and, in the case of bookmakers, this is best done by relocating offshore.

 

From one anachronism, The Levy, to another the Grand National.

On Tuesday we had the unveiling of the Grand National weights, yes the Grand National is the only handicap where the official ratings are ignored and handicapper Phil Smith is given free rein to allocate whatever weight he sees fit, why?

Is he saying the official handicap rating is wrong? If not then why should different weights be allocated for this particular race if not to, for want of a better expression, manipulate the result.

Does it not further undermine the race?

What was once National Hunt racings greatest race has now, frankly, become a liability and it does the sport more harm than good.

It is run over a freakish distance, over freakish fences, more often than not winning horses are never the same afterwards - yes there are exceptions but they are just that, exceptions.

The race is, for good or bad, the sports show-piece event but it is becoming a liability and the damage it does to the perception of the sport far outweighs any benefits it brings.

How many renewals have not seen a fatality or serious injury to a horse - yet we offer this race as our showcase event?

I used to adore the Grand National - now I hate it and for me last years contest was enough.

I would happily scrap the National, tinker with Cheltenham so the Gold Cup is run on a Saturday and use all the marketing resources of racing to make that race the one that is in the forefront of the public's perception of National Hunt racing - how many unexciting Gold Cups have we had in recent years? How many controversial Gold Cups have we had?

There surely cannot be many people who would argue the Grand National is a better advert for National Hunt racing than the Gold Cup.