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.

Weights, Drugs, Booze and Wrong Calls

There is so much to write about in what has been an eventful week.

There is one story which almost slipped through the net last Thursday and that concerns an appeal by Kieren Fox in relation to a four day ban he received for weighing in 1½lbs light at a Kempton meeting on 19^th September.

Custom and practice has dictated the jockey and the jockey alone is responsible for ensuring he carries the correct weight throughout the race. Yet, as soon as he weighs out the jockey hands his saddle to the trainer or head lad so the horse can be saddled. He will not see the saddle again until he sees the horse in the parade ring.

Aided by his very eloquent boss, John Best, the appeal panel found in Fox’s favour stating, “that there was not motive, opportunity nor evidence that Kieren Fox was responsible for the loss of 1½lb lead which was found to be missing on weighing in.”   

It is a very wise and sensible decision . . . how can a jockey be held responsible when the saddle is out of his direct control?

Let me say there is absolutely no question of nefarious goings on in this case and the likelihood is the weight accidentally dropped out of the saddle cloth as it was being carried from the weighing room to the saddling area.

However this decision of the disciplinary panel must result in a change to presumption that the jockey is presumed responsible, even when the saddle is out of his control.

If not the only solution I can see is the jockey is made to carry the saddle to the saddling area himself and he watches the saddling process himself, somehow I cannot see the likes of Fallon and Dettori doing that.   

When I fly, for example, I am quite happy to accept responsibility for what is in my baggage up until the point I check it in. Thereafter I would not expect to be held responsible for anything added or taken from my bag.

It was a busy day for the disciplinary panel last Thursday as also before them were Jack Mitchell and Franny Norton.

Jack Mitchell was before the panel for having traces of benzoylecgonine, a diagnostic metabolite of cocaine and a banned substance in his urine. In other words it indicated he had taken some cocaine in the previous 48 hours. To his credit Mitchell admitted the offence and was very contrite in his submission to the panel.

Norton was appearing before the panel after he failed a breath test for alcohol at Chester in May, indeed the alcohol reading was at a level higher than the allowed limit for driving.

Mitchell was banned for six months, Norton for 40 days.

Both bans are perverse and wrong.

Yes Mitchell was stupid and I am in no way condoning the taking of illegal drugs and what he did was wrong. Yes there were traces of benzoylecgonine in his urine but the actual taking of the cocaine may well have been 48 hours earlier so his ability to ride would not have been impaired that greatly, if at all. Yes he needs to be punished but a six month ban is excessive. If Mitchell’s assertion that this was a one off is accepted, and there is no reason to doubt what he said, then a shorter ban plus attendance at a drug rehabilitation program at his own expense should be sufficient deterrent.

Jack Mitchell

Mitchell is young and youngsters make mistakes, draconian punishments for such mistakes are excessive. To deny somebody of their livelihood for six months for using seems harsh. Firstly when you consider the police, automatically give a caution for a first offence.

Secondly the dealers, who are far more culpable than the users, receive an average sentence of 3 years 3 months and a £167 fine (of course that means they will 19 months in reality).

Turning to Norton he was about to ride a horse whilst over the permitted limit for alcohol – in other words he was drunk. He judgement must have been impaired and he was potentially a danger to himself, his mounts and to other riders. Especially at a tight turning course like Chester.

Yet he was handed a ban of forty days.

I’m sorry but I consider turning up at a racecourse drunk, potentially endangering other riders to be far more serious than Mitchell’s offence.

Norton does not even have the excuse of youth, he is 41 years old and should know better.

Whilst some mitigation factors can be made for Mitchell, none can be made for Norton.

As a footnote it is worth noting Norton was found guilty of having benzoylecgonine in his urine in 2003 and he only received a four month ban.

Finally the normally dependable Stewart Machin made an uncharacteristic mistake when calling the wrong winner at Warwick on Monday afternoon, Mistaking  Rio’s Girl for the very similarly coloured Straboe.  I was at Warwick and I can say the professional man that he is Stewart was absolutely shocked and devastated at the mistake he made.

The press room can be the cruellest place at times but even the most cynical hacks, and there were some at Warwick yesterday, were so taken aback at Stewart’s reaction that all offered him words of encouragement and not the extreme micky taking I’m sure he was expecting. The reaction from the guys in the press room indicates the respect we have for Stewart’s commentating.

Of course there was the inevitable verbal diarrhoea being spouted on Betfair, although to be fair it wasn’t as bad as it can be when we get the race mistakes from commentators.

Apparently one punter lost some £38k on Rio’s Girl based of Stewart’s call and many posters were rallying to that punters cause.

Sorry I have no sympathy for the punter at all, indeed I would actually go as far as to say he actually deserves to lose the money.

No commentator, no matter how good he is, is infallible and to rely on a third party when risking such sums of money is insanely stupid.

Also is there not a perverse contradiction here. Stewart is being criticised for mis-identifying two horses, yet the defenders of the punter are not criticising him, yet he too clearly failed to identify the two horses.     

No wonder the Betfair forum is considered such a joke.