Press Room Life - Part Two

In my last blog I wrote about life in the press room, this time, as promised, it’s time to look at some of the characters who reside therein.

Catterick Press Room

I suppose the first thing I should point out to the uninitiated is there are two distinct sets of press rooms, southern and northern, with a slight overlap in the midlands.

Although, by nature of where I live, I spend more time in the southern press rooms, I’m one of a small band who ends up working in both sets and I can report there is a distinct north / south divide.

On the face of it the northern press rooms are far more blunt and down to earth but I really enjoy working in them as you tend to know where you stand and there is very little hypocrisy.

Let me give you an example.

I will always recall the first time I set foot in a northern press room, I can even recall the date, it was Monday 15^th, September, 2008 at Musselburgh.

I had barely set foot in the press room when I was greeted with a welcoming “who the f**k are you?”

Let’s just say a few “pleasantries” were then exchanged but after that I’ve always been made most welcome in the northern press rooms and, without exception, have found everyone helpful and friendly – even the gentleman who first greeted me.

In a southern press room when a new person enters there is a general “who’s he?” whispering (I say “who’s he” because the press rooms tend to be over 95% male dominated) and if nobody knows then someone will be quietly delegated to chat to the individual and find out who they are and report back.

As in any workplace there are many different types in the press room and it is invariable you end up getting on better with some more than others.

The commentators tend to be the friendliest bunch and I have managed to get on well with almost all of them.

Richard Hoiles

It’s probably unfair to single out individuals but I have to say the “big two” Simon Holt and Richard Hoiles are undoubtedly two of the most pleasant, genuine, likeable guys you could want to meet in any walk of life.

Some are a surprise. Ian Bartlett has been criticised in some quarters for not showing much personality in his commentaries or TV appearances – yet he has the most amazing dry, irreverent sense of humour – if he’s calling I know it will be a cheery fun afternoon in the press room.

There are two excellent young callers in the shape of David Fitzgerald and Gareth Topham.

It’s great watching young Gareth as he still has the (and I mean it in a nice way) innocence and exuberance of youth and hasn’t yet developed the cynicism which comes with age.  

David is a very assured caller and presenter but away from the microphone he is very quiet and reserved, almost shy.

 I hope he won’t mind me telling this story but a few weeks ago he called at Ascot for the first time and he seemed so nervous beforehand, as if he had the worries of the world on his shoulders – I almost wanted to put a paternal arm around his shoulder to comfort him and tell him it will all be OK – as it was the concerns were unfounded as he called to his usual high standard.

It goes without saying the press rooms at the quieter meetings are a world apart from the press rooms at the big meetings.

Fakenham press room

At the smaller meetings you are most likely to find the Racing Post reporter, the RP / Raceform race reader and maybe the occasional local reporter or the Press Association. It’s very unlikely you will see anyone from the national press.

The one exception probably being Alan Lee from The Times who does, in fairness, attend many of the smaller local meetings all around the country.

The trouble with too many of the journos from the nationals is you only see them at the big meetings and when they do deign to put in an appearance, a couple of them strut around the press room as if they own the place – the old “do you know who I am” attitude.

There is one, who works for a national, who is always having problems connecting their laptop but then demands the IT person at the course drops everything to sort the problem out, berating them if they do not respond immediately. Of course 99% of the time the problem isn’t anything to do with the infrastructure at the course – it’s down to their crap laptop. Having worked in IT front line support myself this sort are “heart sink” callers.

Then there is the vexed issue of seats – some correspondents have “reserved” seats in press rooms, which they don’t bother using at 90% of the meetings but should they consent to grace a meeting with their presence then woe betide anyone who may encroach into their precious space.

Of course seats don’t have to be specifically reserved for there to be a problem. I recall my first visit to Lingfield, not the biggest press room. I thought I would sit out of the way, in the back row in the corner. I set up my laptop and was typing away only to find one of the doyens of the press room standing over me enquiring “are you going to be long?” before continuing, “I’ve been coming here 25 year and have always sat in that seat.”

I felt like saying to him “well a change of scenery will do you good” but I just moved over one seat and ‘normality’ was resumed.

Tommo

I suppose I cannot talk about life in the press room without mentioning one of the Marmite ® characters, Derek Thompson.

Now Tommo gets a lot of stick, especially in the press rooms. I am no respecter of reputations, I take people as I find them and all the many times I’ve met Tommo I have found him a thoroughly likable, personable and pleasant person.

Yes he has an image and he works at bolstering that image. I admit I tease him about his reputation but he takes it in the spirit in which it was intended and he can and does laugh at himself.

My belief is a great deal of the dislike for him in the press room simply comes down to envy.

He does his job well (well maybe not always in the commentating), he can work a crowd and at a family fun day or a mid-week meeting he makes a great compare.

For TV work he is a producer’s delight – if they want someone to fill for 45 seconds then Tommo will fill for exactly 45 seconds, an art most broadcasters are incapable of doing.

Those who criticise him most vociferously are those who, frankly, are not good enough to do his job and make the money he makes and they know it.

There is one journo in particular who will snipe about Tommo at every opportunity, yet oddly enough when Tommo is in the room he is perfectly pleasant to him.

You know the sort of person I mean, there is one in almost every workplace.

The person who has an opinion on everything, who feels the need to share that opinion with all and sundry, yet actually says nothing.  

The chap who would be your archetypical pub bore.

As I said he attacks Tommo at every opportunity, yet he himself is almost an anonymous  non-entity, a perfect embodiment of the Peter Principle.

He slags off colleagues seemingly oblivious to the fact that what he says will invariably get back to those he has bad mouthed.

Yet, like most of his ilk, he is a contradiction. He is one of those characters who will happily dish out the abusive comments, yet when given back to him he behaves like a spoiled brat and throws his toys out of the pram.

Machiavelli

Then we have the “smiling assassin” the one with the ingratiating smile, outwardly always polite and the perfect gentleman.

Behind the façade he takes bitchiness to a level which would out-bitch the bitchiest of women.

He is another who thinks his Machiavellian scheming will not get back to his “victims” yet he plays a dangerous game as he himself has a cupboard full of skeletons.

I will, however,  miss being in the press room.

I’ll miss the hard working journos who are being asked to do increasingly more work with tighter deadlines.

I’ll miss the irreverent banter of the snappers.

I’ll miss watching racing in the company of knowledgeable race readers, who love the sport and from whom I have learned so much.

The individual I will miss most of all though is Lee McKenzie, interestingly another our aforementioned  bad-mouthing  “friend” has taken a strong dislike to, then again there are more he dislikes than likes, so I suppose actually being liked by him would make you a select minority.  

Lee is the sort of guy who will do anything for anyone and has been a great help and encouragement to me professionally and, at times, personally over the last six years. He is one press room colleague I still hope to remain in touch with.

You Are The Weakest Link .......

It isn’t very often the world of racecourse commentating makes the Racing Post news pages, usually it happens on one of those very rare occasions when some poor caller mis-identifies a runner and some mug in-running punter burns his fingers.

However the 2012 commentator’s rota seems to be steeped in controversy.

First of all it was announced all three of the 2011 “trainees” would have 15 days commentating in the first half of 2012, as a trial.

Now that does seem to be a departure with tradition as normally a yes / no decision is made at the end of the year.

Of the 2010 trainees, only the exceptionally good David Fitzgerald was given a place on the rota in 2011, despite there being three” vacancies” following the death of Doug Fraser and the “retirements” of Dave Smith and Graham Goode.   

However even more surprising is the news that four of the existing commentators are going to be on a six month reviews in the first half of 2012.

Now it’s clear the powers that be wanted to keep this news quiet but they did not count on veteran commentator Jim McGrath venting his spleen on the pages of the Racing Post.

With Jim blowing the gaff, as it were, it was inevitable the names of the other three would come to light and soon the names of Darren Owen, Iain MacKenzie and Derek Thompson were in the public domain.

Now those who have made this decision about reviewing the commentators have obviously had their cages rattled as it has been reported that they have warned any commentator talking to the press about the matter will have his contract terminated immediately. That seems rather Stalinist and it strikes me as being a tacit admission they have screwed up, which indeed they have.

Mindful of the threat of instant termination for the commentators concerned I am going to have to be circumspect in what I write here.

However it is my belief, and the belief of many of my press room colleagues, that the four commentators have been treated appallingly.

The manner and timing of their notification beggars belief. They were warned by letter they may be reviewed and were told they would be notified of the final decision by phone, just before Christmas as well. Merry Christmas lads!!!

They have been told their performance is being reviewed yet they have not been told what they have supposedly doing wrong or are not doing correctly or what is required to achieve the right standard. That surely cannot be right?

They are effectively saying, "We don't like what you are doing but we won't tell you what you are doing wrong."

All four are long serving members of the commentary team and for them to be treated in this way is an absolute disgrace, whether their performance justifies monitoring or not.

   

Jim McGrath as well as being a racecourse commentator is  BBC televisions lead commentator and I believe that role may not have helped his cause. I think it is universally accepted that when he came to the UK in the mid-eighties he was a breath of fresh air and his commentaries were excellent and refreshing.

He joined the BBC in 1993 as No 2 to the legendry Sir Peter O’Sullevan and it was no surprise he replaced Sir Peter as the senior BBC commentator.

However upon taking up the BBC role he stopped doing on-course commentating. Initially this wasn’t a major problem but as the BBC racing coverage diminished he was increasingly missing out on “match practice” as it were and eventually re-joined the  rota. However since his return he has never had the same edge to his calling as he had previously and, arguably, he has paid the price for not continually commentating over that period.

Derek Thompson is very much a Marmite ™ character yet he is very popular with the courses, especially when they hold family days. He is a standing dish at Newmarket’s Friday evening music race nights and is a regular caller at Yarmouth, Fakenham and Musselburgh amongst others.

He was summed up by Musselburgh chief executive Bill Farnworth, who told the Racing Post “Just as you have horses for courses you have commentators for courses and Tommo definitely has a place among the commentating team.

“Musselburgh and Derek have a close relationship and he seems to go down well with the crowd. He might not be the right person to call the Derby but for many of our days he is spot on."

Should Tommo be dropped from the commentators rota I have no doubt many courses will still use him as their on-course commentator to the exclusion of the "official" Racetech caller.

Indeed the courses may well be happier with that approach as Tommo would not be constrained by the Racetech rules (which he does already ignore on occasion and could possibly be the reason for him being "reviewed" - although that is just conjecture on my part.)

Before turning to Iain MacKenzie I should perhaps “declare an interest”.

It is no secret in the press room that Mr MacKenzie and I are not the best of buddies and are certainly not on one another’s Christmas Card list. I’m still not totally sure how the animosity started and it is unfortunate, but it’s one of those things.    

However, I have to say, whatever differences we may have had in the past his inclusion on the review list is as manifestly wrong as it is in the other cases.

He restricts his commentating to National Hunt only but I cannot think that is a reason for including him in the review.

He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the National Hunt scene and I don’t think there is another person with a greater knowledge of the point-to-point scene.  (He also, apparently, totally dislikes Christmas – so there is, at least, one thing we have in common).

I cannot recall any major cock-ups in his commentaries recently, although the term cock-up may possibly be a reason for his inclusion.  At a meeting at Folkestone earlier this year an unfortunate rider pulled up a circuit too soon and MacKenzie actually referred to it as a “cock-up” during commentary.

Personally I though it to be an honest summation but I wonder if that got him a black mark with the powers that be?

The fourth member of the list is the most bemusing to me.

The inclusion of Darren Owen has to be one of the most perverse decisions I have heard in a long time, even the BHA could not make such a crass, stupid decision.

Darren is a perfectly capable, technically competent, good, what I would call "safe" commentator. That his performance should be under any sort of review absolutely beggars belief.  

So why has this happened?

I think there is a big clue in the fixtures being allocated to the three new commentators. All three are being given commentary slots at ATR courses.

A strange decision but it underlines something I have heard through the grapevine that there is a great deal of political (no pun intended) horse trading going on between the ATR / SIS and RUK / Turf TV camps on the committee which appoints commentators.

I have been told RUK/Turf TV are unhappy with what they seen as a strong bias towards “ATR people” on the commentary rota.

If this is true and I have no reason to doubt my multiple sources, then it is a disgrace that Messer’s McGrath, Thompson, MacKenzie and Owen are being used as pawns in this particularly nasty “game”.       

Marmite Racing

I have to admit I am a fan of the well known yeast extract product which people are said to either love or hate.

Marmite also links three of the most contentious subjects in racing, namely Derek Thompson, Matt Chapman and The Shergar Cup.

Derek Thompson or, as he likes to be called, Tommo seems to have found a niche presenting “Tommo TV” where he acts as a general all round entertainer and, like him or not, he does have this uncanny knack of engaging with the crowd, something even his most vocal detractors will grudgingly acknowledge.

Last week he was plying his trade at Brighton’s three day festival of racing – giving away freebies (of course none financed from his legendary deep pockets) and hijacking any likely looking suspect be they in a restaurant or by the parade ring, especially if they happened to have long legs and breasts. Personally, I don’t mind Thompsons brand of bonhomie . . . . in moderation.

I agree the Tommo approach and style is no good for the big festivals and major meetings but for the increasing number of family fun days he is the ideal host and he can engage with the first time racegoer. More seasoned racegoers can find him too much and even though I can cope with him in moderation, I had a period last year when I was at the same course as him for five consecutive days and towards the end I almost had to be restrained from doing something deeply unpleasant with his microphone.

By some perverse design the other two Marmite subjects were both at Ascot last Saturday as Matt Chapman co-hosted Shergar Cup day.

I have to confess I am on the “don’t like” side of the fence when it comes to Chapman, give me an afternoon of Tommo any day.

Although, with regards Chapman, I could so easily become a convert.

One area where he is exceptionally good, when he decides to take it seriously, is in interviewing jockeys and trainers, yes he can ask the odd inane questions but on the whole he asks the right questions, and he is actually quite knowledgeable.

Where he goes wrong is he has allowed his public persona  to get in the way.

 He seems to see himself as the natural successor to John McCririck, in he seems to nurture this arrogant, controversial public persona which deliberately sets out to court controversy.  

In the case of McCririck it is a façade, as away from the cameras he could not be more different. The trouble is with the façade McCririck puts up he is viewed in many quarters as, at best an eccentric, at worse a buffoon, which is a great pity as he does have some very pertinent points to make about this sport of ours,

I have only met Chapman  twice and I have the feeling he too is a different personality in private.

If he spent more time trying not to be so controversial, not fostering gimmicks like the ridiculous “Yeehaaaa”  he would be taken more seriously and, like McCririck I believe he has some valid points to make.

By saying don’t be more controversial the last thing I am saying is don’t stop pointing out what you see as wrongs but go about it in a more measured way, without the histrionics and you will more likely be taken more seriously, instead he is in danger of turning into a caricature of this monster he has created.

Now the Shergar Cup . . . . if you believed some of the things you read on the forums you would think the Shergar Cup is the end of racing as we know it.

I confess am a Shergar Cup convert - I loathed it initially but am now a great fan.

I accept it is an anathema to many - we are all entitled to our opinions and we all have our likes and dislikes but disliking something is no reason for banning it.

After all I hate artificial surface racing with a vengeance but I accept it has a place and its fans, so I would not call for its abolition (a reduction maybe but not an abolition).

Some say the Shergar Cup is useless for betting, that’s as maybe. It is but one meeting out of 1,480 fixtures in the year and there were three other meetings the same afternoon for those who really cannot survive without having a bet and who did not want to bet on this event.

Some will argue that having a team competition is against the rules and spirit of racing but where is there any evidence of their being team tactics in the Shergar Cup.

Indeed the prize of a silver saddle and £3,000 in cash for the best individual jockey on the day will easily focus the mind of jockeys towards looking after number one.          

The racing was competitive, with some cracking finishes. There were ten runners in every race and there was a rare chance to see some decent overseas riders who would not normally be seen in the UK.

 
In terms of the team competition it really did go down to the line . . . . and those who backed Ireland at 10/1 going into the last race will certainly not be complaining about the afternoon.

The team colours, whilst still not perfect, were infinitely better than they were last year. I was certainly able to follow all the races first time.

Many of the crowd may well have been there primarily for the concert but many were also interested in the racing. I spoke to several first timers during the afternoon and yes, shock horror, some said they really enjoyed the afternoon and would come racing again.

Look at it another way, without the concert many would not have been there at all, so there would be no chance otherwise to try and attract them to the sport.

The area in front of the stands were packed for the actual racing and it was always busy, as busy as at any Ascot Saturday meeting, round the parade ring.

I personally believe the Shergar Cup can hook in far more new racegoers than any number of Ben and Brian initiatives.

It wasn't all perfect, having Matt Chapman as the co-presenter was a mistake - but then again I am biased on that front, so I am probably not an objective observer on that one.

The "opening ceremony" was too soon before the first contest and the runners in the first were notably more fractious, I suspect because of what was going on in the parade ring.