Let It Snow

Just in case you haven’t noticed, or you are reading this outside the UK, it’s been snowing outside.

Apparently racing is “suffering” as a result with meetings being abandoned left right and centre, although I fail to see how a meeting can be abandoned if it hasn’t actually started, as far as I am concerned unless the meeting has actually commenced it is CANCELLED.

Even the supposed “all weather” meetings have been called off due to, ahem, the weather. Those of you who follow my web site will know I stopped referring to it as “all weather” racing a few years ago and I refer to it as “artificial surface” racing. Surely it is time the racing authorities took the same approach?

I’m very tempted to find some advertising material extolling the virtues of all weather racing and passing it to the Advertising Standards Authority to see what they think of the use of the term.

It isn’t simply a matter of semantics, it makes racing look absolutely stupid, having a product it calls all weather racing, when it patently isn’t, is absurd.

Of course, some would argue that racing is a past master at making itself look stupid, so it should not be any great surprise.

Reading some of the racing forums you would think the loss of racing is the end of the word – well it isn’t – life will carry on. For those working in the industry it’s an annoyance but an occupational hazard which has to be accepted as a fact of life.   

For those compulsive gamblers who cannot survive without their betting fix it seems the bookmakers are going out of their way to accommodate them with betting available on real horseracing from such diverse locations as France, South Africa, United States and even Chile!!

Let’s face it, who in the UK, with any modicum of common sense, would want to bet on racing from Chile unless they have a serious gambling problem?

Then again judging by the sheer number of “races” being shown people are obviously happy to bet on cartoon racing otherwise there would not be such a proliferation of it in the betting shops.

Looking at one leading bookmakers website, between 12:45 and 13:30 this afternoon there are no fewer than 22 virtual horse races being shown, in other words one every two minutes!!!

Another bookmaker has virtual cycling, tennis, horse racing, greyhound racing, football and motor sports.

Why would anybody in the right mind want to bet on these events? Talk about “a fool and his money.”   

Yes it’s snowing but it isn’t the end of the world. It’s highly unlikely anyone is going to die because there isn’t any racing taking place.

I’m old enough to remember the winter of 1963, where racing was shut down for months yet the industry survived.

OK I wasn’t old enough to notice the lack of racing – but I remember the months of freezing.

Listening to the news this morning I am astounded at the number of schools across the country closed as a result of the snow.

I don’t recall schools being closed back in the winter of ’63. In those days we were not ferried to schools by car, indeed most families did not even own a car – my parents never had a car.

We had to walk to school and even my infant school was a two mile walk which we had to do in all weathers.

Nowadays the "precious little darlings" have to be ferried to school by car, quite often even less than half a mile, usually by mothers with complete disregard for traffic regulations.

Heaven forbid children, or even the parents come to that, should have to use their legs and actually walk somewhere.

No wonder there is an obesity crisis amongst the children of today - especially as they are also pumped full of burgers and other junk food.

The Politics Of Envy

Before I go any further I must categorically say I am not a flag waver for the bookmakers, far from it.

In my ideal world bookmakers would play no part in horse racing and the sport would be healthily funded, as in other racing jurisdictions, by a Tote monopoly.  

Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and thanks to some ill-conceived legislation in the early 1960’s racing has been lumbered with a funding model which may (although I would question even that) have been appropriate for that day and age but which is now wholly inappropriate for the 21^st Century.

The recent “scandal” surrounding the taxation affairs of companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Google has again turned attention to the tax affairs of bookmakers.

You will note I placed the word scandal in quotes. For the simple reason I don’t view it as a scandal. The companies involved have done nothing illegal and are merely exploiting the taxation system to their best advantage.

If any Government introduced the draconian tax measures being naively called for by some, investment in this country would virtually end overnight and our economy would make Greece look positively flush.  

Of course there have been sanctimonious, mealy mouthed, protestations from all the usual suspects.

MP’s have described the actions of the companies as immoral. Two comments on that, firstly given the recent track records of Parliamentarians in relation to their expenses I don’t think they are in any position to Pontificate. Secondly it is not the position of MP’s or indeed anyone to tell others what is morally right or wrong. Morals are very personal to individuals; everyone has a different moral compass, developed by a combination of nurture and personal circumstances.

My moral code is unique to me and whereas I may not approve of the morals of others, what right do I have to impose my own moral code on others? The same should apply to politicians.

I agree there needs to be certain standards maintained in society but they come about through general consent and consensus, not by imposition by a random sample of 600 odd MP’s – and the term “odd” can be applied in more ways than one.

It could also be argued the “loopholes” being exploited by these companies are here because of the inability of successive Governments to frame strict enough legislation, although the pragmatic truth is the loopholes are there for a very good reason

Also how many of the influential people beating their chests about this issue are self-employed or work with freelance contracts? Do they not employ accountants to minimise their tax liabilities?

Many of these pontificating politicians earn decent incomes with extra-curricular activities, such as public speaking engagements. You can bet your bottom dollar they don’t pay full whack tax on the income derived from those activities.

Does anyone in their right mind pay more tax than they need to?

Anyway, I digress, as I said attention has once again turned to the bookmakers and their affairs.

Bookmakers are, once again, being attacked for moving offshore in order to minimise their tax and Levy liabilities.

Why shouldn’t they?

They are, in the main, public companies which have a legal responsibility to maximise returns for shareholders and if, perfectly legally, they choose to offshore their businesses to maximise returns why shouldn’t they?

There was a “debate” on Twitter last night around this issue.

I say “debate” because it’s interesting to note as soon as I began to question one of the arguments being put forward, a particular user who, until that point, I had a great deal of respect for and who I thought to be an intelligent, rational person, decided to block me, thus preventing any further, discussion.

It’s interesting to see people in their true, arrogant, colours.

Anyway, I digress again, the tenet of last night’s discussion is that businesses, including bookmakers (and other shops), should be forced to display, in their windows, details of where they pay their taxes. The “logic” behind this being customers could make an informed choice as to whether they choose to transact business with these organisations.

It is a ridiculous suggestion, not least because most punters / customers could not give a toss about where companies or organisations are based. Your average betting shop punter or man on the Clapham omnibus couldn’t care less if his bookmaker / shopkeeper pays 50% tax in the UK or 1% in Outer Mongolia.

For the small minority who really do care about the tax affairs of the businesses they do business with, the information is already easily available within the public domain.

It is being rather simplistic but those people who are generally exercised by the issue can be placed into one of two categories.

First, the Guardian reading, Champagne Socialists, who tend to be the biggest hypocrites of the lot – pretending to be supporters of the “working man” Which they are, provided their only contact with the “working man” is the chap they employ to decorate little Tristan’s nursery. Although in that instance the man is likely to be Polish as he’s cheaper, and who will, of course, be paid cash in hand to avoid tax.

Indeed how many of those self-righteously complaining have paid a tradesman “cash in hand” to carry out some work or have done “cash in hand” work themselves – and that is illegal!!   

The second category are those for whom the politics of envy is still a mantra, those who believe the crap spouted by the group above, those who generally have no self-ambition, who take the easy option and always look for somebody else to blame for their parlous position.

In the past few weeks I’ve see supposedly intelligent people calling for legislation to protect racing from FOBT’s, legislation to force businesses to display taxation information, legislation to protect racings funding. Legislate, legislate, legislate!!!!

Why should there be legislation to protect racing? Why should racing have special treatment? Why should racing not stand or fall on its own two feet, like any other industry?

The truth is racing has relied on a funding model which is no longer fit for purpose. Instead of facing up to the impending crisis it has buried its head in the sand and done nothing. The sport is paying the price for years of impotent, incompetent, “leadership”.

In parallel the bookmakers have been very competently and very astutely managed, to the extent they now hold all the aces, whilst racing holds a busted flush.

Much as I like my racing I also don’t want legislators wasting time discussing protectionist legislation simply to protect an industry which is floundering as a result of its own incompetence, they have far more important issues to deal with.

I don’t want to see legislation introduced to restrict the use of FOBT’s. The argument is trotted out that the machines are addictive, so are many things addictive. Alcohol is more addictive than FOBT’s and causes far more harm within society.

Many of those jumping on the “ban the FOBT” bandwagon are claiming their objections are from the position of protecting addictive gamblers, when in reality what they want is to reduce the competition for racing. If protection of racing is their motive that is fine – just be honest and say so.

As for “protecting” those addicted to FOBT’s – whatever happened to self responsibility? Of course, silly me, our Guardian reading Champagne socialists don’t believe the “plebs” should have any responsibility – the Nanny State should be looking after them and telling them what to do and think.   

I don’t want to see “politically” motivated witch hunts against organisations that are running their businesses efficiently and maximising profits using perfectly legitimate means. Clearly they are jealous of the success of those businesses.

The politics of envy stinks and has no place in any century, let alone the 21^st.

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.

What A Carry On

The “Carry On ……..” films are something of an acquired taste and were based on a standard formula where there wass incompetence, misunderstanding and innuendo.

The saga of the 2011 fixture list certainly fulfils the first two of the above criteria.

According to the latest pronouncement from the BHA it looks like being late September before the 2011 fixture list is published – which will not be good news for printers of racing diaries and calendars.

The delay in publishing the new fixture list, normally published in July, is the result in a catastrophic drop in the Levy.

By all accounts those in the industry were expecting a levy yield of £150m, whereas the actual yield will be around the £70m mark.

Talking to individuals closely involved in the negotiations, those in the BHA were so certain of there being a £150m yield they had no “plan B”. Indeed it was actually put to a senior director of the BHA that the yield was not going to be as expected and when asked what the alternative would be, the somewhat worrying response was along the lines “the Levy will yield £150m, we do not need a contingency plan.”

If this assertion is true, and I have no reason to doubt either the reliability or integrity of my source, then it does not auger well for the future of the sport when the “leaders” adopt such an arrogant stance.

The press release detailing the delay in announcing the fixture list had one very telling paragraph in particular.

“…………. meeting of the British Horseracing Authority Board and the subsequent meeting of the Levy Board, together with detailed dialogue with the Racecourse Association and Horsemen's Group.”

Therein lies the problem, there are too many diverse, vested and often contradictory interests involved in the running of the sport.

More fundamentally the Levy is an unfair and anachronistic means of funding the sport.

Why should horse racing alone benefit from a bookmakers levy?

Why shouldn’t soccer, rugby, tennis, golf benefit from a levy as well? Indeed should the BBC not get a Levy payment on the Strictly Come Dancing betting turnover?

When the Levy was introduced almost 50 years ago bookmakers bet almost exclusively on horse racing and the Levy model had some credence.

Now, however, the environment is completely different and horse racing is just one of many sports vying for the punters pound.

Love them or hate them and I have to confess I am no fan of bookmakers, they are canny operators. Most have moved offshore to maximise returns and decrease their Levy liabilities and who can blame them for that. Most are shareholder owned businesses and they have a legal obligation to ensure maximum returns for investors.

To “protect” the Levy they made voluntary payments from the offshore betting and, culpably, racings leaders rolled over without a fight.

If offshoring was not enough to fatally damage the Levy then the introduction of the betting exchanges really threw everything into disarray.

Bookmakers complained because, overnight, their monopoly on laying had disappeared. No longer did they have exclusive access to and were able to utilise insider knowledge to make a killing.

Of course the bookmakers cried foul, saying individuals can benefit from inside knowledge, not known to the public at large.

That complaint is, of course, somewhat disingenuous as bookmakers have for years made use of information not generally available to the general public. Whether the information comes from schmoozing connections or, more sinisterly, overlooking defaulted accounts in return for information.

But of course the real objection the bookmakers have to the exchanges is it has hit their bottom line and profit.

For all their faults bookmakers are run by accountants who know exactly what they are doing.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the BHA.

It only needs a quick read through the CV’s of the BHA board of Directors to realise how weak it is and what little grasp of running a multi-million pound business there is.

Far too many of the Executive are racing insiders with no experience of running a major business. With all due respect to the individuals concerned how can a former trainer, formster and TV pundit, Clerk Of the Course and Cop as well as other lifelong racing insiders effectively control a multi-million pound enterprise?

Even those bought in from outside the industry do little to inspire confidence with only Paul Roy boasting any credible experience and that is only in merchant banking.

Even the Finance Director’s only previous experience was effectively as a departmental head of finance within the BBC – not the perfect financial model for horseracing.

With such a weak management structure it is little wonder the wiz kids n the bookmaking fraternity are able to run rings around the BHA.

Of course the lack of significant “real world” business expertise amongst the BHA executive is only part of their problem.

More significant are the other vested interests pulling in different directions. From the Racecourse Association (RCA) representing the racecourses, through to the Horseman’s Group representing trainers and the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA) representing owners. All of whom have differing and often contradictory agendas.

With such a fragmented industry, full of self interested bodies, it is actually a wonder racing has actually survived as long as it has.

Now it is approaching decision time.

The focus on next years fixture list centres around the 250 BHA funded meetings, of which 150 are in doubt.

The 16 fixtures allocated to Ffos Las, as a new course are safe, which is a relief as without them the course would not have been sustainable and it may well have followed that great white elephant Great Leighs although, unlike Great Leighs, Ffos Las is a course which deserves to succeed.

The main reduction will be at weekends with funding for four Saturday and two Sunday meetings each weekend. I agree with the four meetings on a Saturday but would prefer to see three meetings on a Sunday at the cost of having a blank midweek day, say having Mondays (apart from Bank Holidays) as blank days.

Of the surviving BHA funded meetings even some of these are in doubt as most of the meetings are the all-weather twilight meetings and these will only be allowed if the courses can guarantee an average prize fund of £3,000 a race, a sum significantly more than is on offer now. Better still, bearing in mind these meetings are run for the benefit of the bookmakers, perhaps the bookmakers should fully fund them.

In my view a reduction of 150 meetings in 2011is nowhere near enough. This equates to an approximate 10% reduction in fixtures against a drop in predicted revenue of around 50% ….. even a a grasp of basic schoolboy mathematics (or as I believe it is called now – numeracy) will tell you the figures will not add up.

There needs to be a greater drop in the number of fixtures and if that means racecourses having to close or the number of horses in training and the number of trainers operating being reduced then so be it.

Sure there will be posturing saying the industry could not survive such cuts, that is a parochial view. Is it not better to have a smaller more efficient industry than no industry at all, which is what will happen if drastic action is not taken.

In all other industries and walks of life drastic cuts are having to be made, racing should not be an exception. Yet one is left with the strong impression racings rulers think the problems can be addressed with the application of a sticking plaster rather than drastic surgery.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if racing as we currently know it failed. It would be painful but it would also give the opportunity for a new, leaner, better managed sport to emerge.

Personally I would like to see the sport run on the Hong Kong model, where all aspects of the sport are run and controlled centrally. There would be a Tote monopoly with all profits being returned to the sport. Broadcast rights would be managed more efficiently and professionally.

It is absolutely absurd and a damning inditement on the ability of the sports management that the sport actually ends up paying a broadcaster to cover the sport.

In the short term the 2011 fixture list should be cut to a maximum of 1,000 fixtures.

Not That Bad ........

Love them or loath them, bookmakers are an integral part of racing both in the UK and Ireland.



They add to the atmosphere on course, they contribute a significant amount to prize money both via the Levy and through sponsorship. Although it is interesting the Government has hinted they want to completely review the Levy and probably not before time as it was designed before exchanges, the internet and offshore bookmakers were even thought about.



To their supporters they are an essential element of the sport without whom the sport would not survive. To their detractors they are seen as parasites, keen to make as much money from the sport and only paying lip service to supporting the sport and doing all they can to fleece punters.



The truth, of course, is somewhere between the two.



One criticism of bookmakers, especially at all-weather meetings where the markets are inherently weak, is the over rounds are poor and it is almost impossible for punters to get any value. Indeed the ring at some meetings is so weak it is effectively controlled by the high street bookmakers.



Punters rightly complain at books in the mid 100’s for small field contests.



I, however, have made a discovery that makes the bookmakers, even at the all weather meetings, appear positively generous.



Having now done every UK track at least three times I am now aiming my sights higher. My new quest is to go racing in as many different countries as possible.



Latest in the quest is Malta, home to two courses one just south of Valletta on the main island and one on the adjacent island of Gozo.



Last Sunday I visited Marsa racecourse, the islands principal course. Staging mainly trotting with some flat racing, this meeting was an eight race trotting meeting, although meetings with ten race cards are not uncommon.



For punters there is a choice of the Tote or betting with bookmakers.



At the meeting five races had 16 runners, two 15 and one 13. Yet with such large fields the biggest price I ever saw on offer from the bookies was 6/1 and that was only on one horse in a single race. The over rounds were appalling, there wasn’t a single race where the book was below 300%. In one race it was a staggering 391%.



Despite the terrible odds, there were crowds six deep around the bookmakers kiosks, clearly the locals in Malta have no concept of percentages or value.



The Tote prices seemed to be more realistic, with some runners showing indicative odds of 33/1 for example.



Can you imagine the outcry in the UK or Ireland if bookmakers priced up a 300% plus race – the forums would melt with the heated comments and their pitches would probably be overturned.



I cannot see even the most ardent supporter of bookmakers trying to defend such a book.



So although our bookmakers have many faults we, in the UK and Ireland, should be grateful we don’t have Maltese bookmakers.

He Who Pays The Piper

One of the talking points within racing over the last week has been the decision of journalist and columnist Paul Haigh to leave the Racing Post after 23 years.

“The agenda of Britain's only racing/sports newspaper is now being dictated entirely by its main advertisers," he said in an interview with The Guardian.

"Almost all the racing media is now under the effective editorial control of the bookmakers either because bookmaker advertising is essential to their survival, or because other racing correspondents have been made aware of, er, the side on which their bread is buttered."

The only real surprise is that some are surprised at what Haigh says.

Of course the defensive wagons have been circling at the Post’s headquarters at Canary Wharf and the Post’s editor has been quick to condemn Haigh and the senior hacks have begun a whispering campaign to discredit him. Both of which are to be expected.

After all if editor Bruce Millington were to say the truth and confirm what Haigh said is absolutely true then he would be the next one out of the door at Canary Wharf.

I worked in the IT industry for 20 years, the last twenty in the insurance and banking sector.

For the final half dozen years I worked in what was called a Relationship Management role. The role was an interface between the IT department and the users of the IT systems – i.e. the business areas and, ultimately, the banks customers.

Sounds grand but the job was effectively that of a spin doctor. The usual scenario being IT cocked up and our role was to limit the damage and of course never admit there had been a “cock-up” unless there was no other choice.

Of course the business users were not stupid and able to “read between the lines” and as long as we were honest “off the record” there was a general acceptance these things happen.

Occasionally there would be the occasional senior manager, even Director who would get fed up with the constant cover-ups and speak out. However there bravery came at a price and no matter how good they were it signaled the end of their career in the bank.

There was one exceptionally good Head of Banking, very competent, plenty of good ideas. He had the temerity to question the ability of the IT department to deliver (justifiably so) and he dared raise it at an executive board meeting. The IT director (who was also very close to the Chief Exec and Chairman) took umbrage and within a week it was announce the Head Of Banking was looking to further his career elsewhere. His crime – speaking the truth.

Of course, to the outside world, nothing was ever admitted. Even when a new IT system that had not been completed properly or fully tested was implemented because senior management has decreed it would go live on a certain day - there was never an admission as to what had happened.

So yes I understand Mr. Millington’s public pronouncements that the bookmakers have no editorial control over what happens in the Post or that the Post is “soft” on bookmakers.

However anyone working in the industry knows it is true.

I once heard one of the representatives of a leading bookmaker say, “the Post will not be a problem, we are a major advertiser and have an influence.”

My personal belief is the problem is not the influence of the advertisers per-se, it is the lack of credible competition.

If there was a decent competitor the Post would have to take news gathering much more seriously. Currently it does not need to. It can take the easy option.

It could, if it wanted to, also stand up to the bookmakers. Although the bookmakers may bluster and feel they can dictate if the Post stood up to them what would they do?

Does anybody seriously think a major bookmaker would stop advertising in the paper because the paper did not tow the line?

Of course not. Although the post needs the advertisers the advertisers need the Post just as much.

It is a symbiotic relationship. A parasite and a host, the only area of debate is which one is which?

It is a pity the Post management do not have the desire to produce more (any) investigative journalism. Indeed, if word on the street is to be believed, the Post will actually be reducing the number of journalists it employs and moving towards using input from the PA.

What is really needed is some viable competition to the Post.

Until such time and until there is a strong management at the Post it will be a case of “he who pays the piper, calls the tune” and the only ones who will benefit from that are the pipers.