The Floodgates Open

I suppose it was not the greatest surprise that Harry Findlay’s ban was reduced on appeal but, nonetheless, it is not a good day for the sport.

It seems, sadly, that threatening to throw ones toys out of the pram results in a massive climb down by the disciplinary panel.

I am not going to rake through the details of what Findlay did, they are more than adequately documented elsewhere.

The bottom line is Findlay broke one of the rules which is fundamental to the integrity of the sport. His assertion it was a genuine mistake defies belief …. he is an experienced, professional gambler. These men know the rules inside out and they know the loopholes and they certainly do not make the naïve mistakes Findlay claims to have made.

In my view Findlay thought he could get away with flouting the rules because of who he is – frankly he thinks he is bigger than the sport.

The rule is quite clear, owners cannot lay their own horses – a very simple black and white rule – no ambiguity.

It matters not if Findlay stood to be an overall loser or winner with the lay bet. The bottom line is he fragrantly broke the rule and he should be punished with the full force of the regulation.

Allowing for mitigation in matters of integrity should be a no-go area. Any breach of the rules of racing that impact integrity should automatically have a ban – regardless of who the individual is.

After Findlay received the initial ban he threatened to walk away from the sport in the UK – let’s hope he still sticks to that threat, although I somehow suspect he will not.

Racing does not need the likes of Findlay.

More importantly the findings of the appeal committee have blown a massive hole in the bid to maintain the integrity of racing.

Despite the assertion by the appeal committee that Findlay’s case is unique and a one off, this has set a precedent.

Any half decent lawyer will be able to quote this case as a precedent in any future hearing – thus opening up a massive can of worms.

The decision of the appeal hearing has done racing a great disservice, another nail in the coffin of the sport.

- - - - -

Last week I had a blast at what I called the “spineless cowards” of internet forums, interestingly despite a couple of thousand hits not one individual has contacted me to “defend” their position although I have received many mails supporting my stance.

- - - - -

One of the “marmite” meetings of the year is a mere three weeks away, I refer to Ascot’s Shergar Cup meeting, racings only team competition.

Now I am the first to admit I was the meetings biggest critic when it was first mooted, now I am its biggest fan.

It is a different day out, it may not be a betting medium but there is more to racing than betting. The meeting now attracts a crowd in excess of 50,000 each year as it grows in popularity.

Far too much money has been spent on Racing For Change (RFC), an initiative that has delivered nothing for the money invested. Ascot has done more with the Shergar Cup to involve and attract new racegoers than anything achieved by RFC.

Jockeys are accessible, there is a competitive edge added to the racing with the team competition, which provides fun and entertainment throughout the afternoon.

This year there is a new change, which will be a nightmare for race-readers and commentators, in that jockeys will wear full team colours. Previously runners have worn owners silks with caps and breeches being the distinguishing features.

This year, in consultation with the owners association there will be full team colours worn.

The three jockeys riding for Great Britain will wear red and white, those representing Ireland will sport green and white, jockeys riding for Europe blue and white, while the Rest of the World team will carry black and white silks. In order to differentiate, distinguishing caps and sleeves will be worn.

A good change which will surely enhance the afternoon.

To those who knock the meeting and call it a disgrace the answer is simple - don't watch it, if betting is so important to you then there are another five meetings that day.

Spineless Cowards

I’m returning to one of my regular themes again this week although I promise for the final time, it is the scourge of the internet forum.

The internet has opened up the world, providing information at the touch of a button, it also allows people to have a voice, to express their views and feelings , no matter how outlandish or perverse.

Blogs allow for individual expression and internet forums allow for “discussion”.

Most of the time the discussion, although lively, is generally good natured and harmless.

However there is also a nasty underbelly, which has been highlighted in the past week.

The Racing Forum is, unarguably, the best of the racing related forums on the internet, it bills itself as being the home if intelligent debate and, doubtlessly, it is by far the best of breed, excellently managed and moderated.

Those who post on the forum fall into three categories, a small minority (like myself) post under their real names. Another minority post using a pseudonym but their real identity is obvious. However the majority of posters are totally anonymous.

Now for the majority of threads on the forum this is not a real issue as the content is generally harmless.

However there are also a number of insidious threads which are used to attack racing “personalities”, the majority, of course, being pocket talking so excusable, if not generally pathetic.

Occasionally, however, a thread appears which just goes too far, is just vindictive and were it, for example, to appear in the same form in the printed media would feel the full force of the PCC.

Once such thread has appeared on The Racing Forum in the past week or so …. now I am the first to admit this particular thread it not unique and, compared with what appears on in some other forums or internet sites, is by no means the worse.

However it does clearly illustrate one of the biggest problems with the internet and it highlights why I believe governments need to consider passing legislation to ensure enforceable regulation over internet content.

The thread was simply entitled Peter Naughton. I had a quick look assuming it was going to be another thread picking holes in something a presenter had said on television. Theses types of thread are two a penny, generally ignorant, ill informed comment , almost always coming from an anonymous contributor.

However this one was different, it was attacking Peter Naughton’s tipping line. Now let me say from the outset that tipping lines generally are fair game when it comes to criticism. Very few offer value for money and very few and certainly only the very best survive for any period of time.

On a couple of occasions I have been asked if I wanted to invest in a tipping line. Now whilst I have nothing against tipping lines per-se, close examination of the business model, or more importantly considering questions not addressed in the business plan, show they are not a get rich quick schemes and there is a very real risk of losing money on the investment – but I digress.

It was quickly clear from the first few postings that the thread was going to take a particularly nasty turn.

Needless to say the thread was started by one of our anonymous heroes. It seems he has been following Naughton’s tipping line and has discovered, how shall I put it, inconsistencies in some of Naughton’s claims.

He has been calling Naughton’s tipping line for several minutes each day and editing his findings, alleging several inconsistencies.

Now on the face of it what was being alleged certainly appeared to be in breach of the guidelines for premium rate telephone services, indeed there appeared to be a prima-face case.

So I asked on the thread whether the original complainant had raised the matter with the appropriate regulator? He, of course, refused to respond but one of the “usual (anonymous of course) suspects” came back with a completely irrelevant answer saying it wasn’t necessary.

Anyway, each day the “findings” continued to emerge so I asked another question, one to which I already knew the answer, and that was had the person making the allegations actually put them to Peter Naughton and I also made a comment about the credibility of anonymous posters.

Well the abuse and allegations made against me then had to be seen to be believed and it has made me, once and for all, walk away completely from internet forums.

Let’s look at some of the issues raised by this particular thread.

Let me say from the outset if a tipping line, no matter who it is hosted by, is deliberately setting out to make misleading claims then it deserves to be exposed and, if proven to be in breach, shut down.

However there are ways and means of doing it properly.

Firstly all the allegations being made are being accepted at face value by most of those reading the postings, yet there is no credible substantiation.

First of all the allegations are coming from an anonymous source. Who is he / she? Why is he/she conducting this exposé?

What are they hoping to achieve by posting the findings on an internet forum. It will not lead to the site being shut down as they seem unwilling to present their so called evidence to the regulators.

How do we know this individual does not have some vendetta with Peter Naughton? Why pick on this particular tipping line, when there are plenty worse?

Secondly, how credible is the “evidence” being presented. He claims he calls the tipping line each day and the calls last around seven minutes, yet he only selectively quotes snippets from the call which support his own point of view?

Does he have recordings / transcripts of all the calls? How do we know the quotes he is providing are not being quoted out of context?

Certainly in that very same thread comments I had made were being taken out of context to try to “prove” something I did not actually say.

Thirdly, why have the allegations not been put to Naughton for a response?

If these allegations were being made in the written press the journalist making them would have to make them openly, would have to keep full records and notes and would have to present the evidence to the “accused” to allow a response prior to publication.

Because these allegations are being made online none of those rules have to be followed and that cannot be right.

Indeed more than one individual actually made the point that because it is the Internet then it does not matter if the allegations are made fairly.

Even one of the more sensible contributors to the forum, an established and respected owner, made the comment there are many critical threads on forums and individuals are not given the right to reply. Indeed there are but that does not make it right.

I happen know these allegations had not been put to Naughton because I actually mentioned them to him when I saw him at the races last week. Before I had spoken to him he had never even heard of The Racing Forum, so he had know way of knowing about the allegations, yet alone have an opportunity to respond.

He was concerned by the allegations but interestingly one of the first comments he made to me was “I suppose they being made anonymously?”

When I replied they were he, understandably, seemed to lose any interest in even bothering to look, yet alone respond and, frankly, I cannot blame him.

When I made a point in the forum about allegations coming from anonymous sources lack the credibility of openly made allegations the person making the allegations, predictably, came back with the pathetic argument that what he writes behind a pseudonym is equally valid to something written openly.

What complete and utter rubbish …. the comments, no matter how well intentioned are absolutely worthless.

Then again how can you argue with somebody who has such a misguided, moronic view and perspective.

He is not clever, he is a coward, happy to snipe, make unsubstantiated allegations and conduct a character assassination with what he believes to be impunity.

I will say it openly – he, and his ilk, are spineless cowards, bullies who are “brave” behind a cloak but who do not have the guts or courage of their convictions to openly come out and say what they thing and believe.

The sooner the internet and everyone who contributes to it or publishes content is covered by the same rules and laws which apply to the print media the better. I realise the government have more pressing priorities but this cancer on the internet needs to be excised.

I would have put these points to the individual calling themselves “Armchair Jockey”, so they could respond – but as they choose to remain anonymous how can I?

Of course, in the unlikely event "Armchair Jockey", or any of his ilk are reading this and wish to defend their approach and actions then I am quite happy to give them the space for a response - only one condition though - the response has to be open and not hidden behind some pathetic pseudonym - I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply though.

A Funny Week

It’s been a funny old week has this week.

On Wednesday I had a day of contrasts.

On the racing front I attended what must have been the most uninspiring, uncompetitive race meeting in many a long day, all the more annoying because the card actually looked quite competitive the day before.

Matters were not helped by Haydock being hit by an overnight deluge, which significantly altered the going and led to many non-runners.

Only one of the seven contests produced anything approaching a finish to get the pulse racing.

Notwithstanding the poor quality racing the talking point of the afternoon centred around the “performance” of Nevertika.

Leaving the parade ring he was the 3/1 favourite for the contest, although quite why was a moot point as he was returning from a lay-off of almost a year.

However as soon as he emerged from the parade ring he bolted, ran away with his inexperienced rider Harry Haynes, who lost his irons and had to endure what, I imagine, was at best an uncomfortable, at worse an extremely painful ride as his mount did a full circuit of the mile and a half course at near racing pace. For good measure he also twice managed to almost demolish the running rails.

By the time he pulled up he was drifting markedly in the ring – at least the drift would have resulted in a smaller Rule 4.

He was eventually pulled-up in front of the stands with Haynes gingerly dismounting, soon to be joined by the horses lass and trainer.

The somewhat small crowd were expecting the horse to be returned to the stables and for the withdrawal announcement to be made.

They waited, we waited in the press room. The lass started leading the horse, however not in the direction of the stables but towards the start where the other eight runners were waiting patiently.

It has to be said there was absolute incredulity in the press room that the horse was going to be allowed to take part in the race.

The vet took a look at the horse at the start, it must be a withdrawal now - no it was allowed to line up, by which point it had drifted out to 7/1.

To quote the official form book Nevertika was “in rear, ridden along and lost touch after 4th, tailed off when pulled up before 6th” – Quel Surprise!!!!

There is absolutely no way that horse should have been allowed to take part.

Yes his price drifted on-course but what about those who backed the horse before the antics. They were never going to get a run for their money.

Some will undoubtedly argue “well that’s racing” or “horses have bolted before and still gone on to win.”

Both statements may contain some element of truth, however “well that’s racing” is not a justification. It doesn’t mean it is right, the same comment could equally have been applied when we had wooden running-rails and concrete posts.

At a time when racing is attempting to attract new blood incidents like this do not look good.

In response to the comment “horses have bolted before and still gone on to win.”

Well yes they have, but they are in a minority and very rarely when they have run a full circuit of the track flat out.

Common sense dictates, in the circumstances seen on Wednesday afternoon, Nevertika should not have been allowed to race.

It was not good for punters, it was not good for the image of racing and, most importantly, it probably did the horse little good either.

So all in all an unsatisfactory day at the races.

Anyway as I said at the beginning it was a day of contrasts and going racing at Haydock on Wednesday had an ulterior motive as, after racing, I was going to meet some long lost relatives.

Ironically this meeting came about, indirectly, as a result of racing, or to be precise non-racing.

I am not the sort of person who can sit at home doing nothing and when we had the prolonged cold snap in January I decided to research my family tree - after all there is only so much all-weather racing a man can take.

I knew Dad had a sister and I had four cousins but as with a lot of families they had lost touch over the years.

I have some very vague recollections of seeing them when I was about four years old, believe me that was a very long, long time ago.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I managed to track them down and to my utter delight I found out my Aunt was still alive, 90-years-old, and that she and three of my cousins all lived within four miles of Haydock Park.

Wednesday was the day to finally meet them again.

I have to admit I was, to use the venacular, bricking it as I drove from the course to my cousin’s house. I need not have been, they are all lovely people and four generations of the family were there to meet me … … I had a great evening and came away with loads of photographs and stories of when Dad was a lad. Something very special, as we have no photographs of Dad in his younger days.

Now contact has been made the next move will be to get Dad to meet his sister for the first time in 45 years, for what I expect will be a very emotional reunion and my "kid sisters" can meet part of the family they have never met before.

I didn’t get home until the small hours of Thursday morning but I don’t care because what happened that evening more than made up for any rubbish day at the races.

In some of my previous ramblings I have moaned about internet forums and in particular racing forums and especially anonymous posters who think hiding behind a nickname gives them the right to be gratuitously offensive with impunity.

Well I have to report I have finally finished with internet forums. I have to say I made my exit with mixed feelings but what I have seen on the forum in the last week has vindicated my decision.

I had been concerned for some time about the level of personal abuse being dished out on the forum, inevitably by the anonymous posters.

In addition there was one poster in particular who seemed to delight in twisting virtually everything I wrote and was seemingly intent on just stirring things up.

Needless to say he was hiding behind an moniker and, as it often the case, a wholly inappropriate one. In the end he made one comment too many and that was that, I decided to no longer post on the forum in question or, indeed, any other forum.

A couple of times since I have wondered if I was being rash in no longer posting, however as I said, a couple of subsequent events have, I believe, vindicated my decision.

First of all I was talking to a colleague on the press room, indeed the very colleague who introduced me to the forum in the first place, and told him I had stopped posting and explained why. He then told me he had also stopped posting because of the levels of personal abuse being dished around the forum. In his case it was a thread entitled “Derek Thompson Is A Tosser,” which stopped him contributing.

Derek Thompson polarises opinion, however no matter how much you may dislike his style making a comment like that on a public forum is not acceptable. Needless to say the thread was started by an anonymous poster – I wonder if they would have the guts to call Derek a “tosser” to his face. I suspect not.

For the record my view is his style may not be the most appropriate for the big meetings, however he is absolutely brilliant at "working the crowd." He is perfect MC or commentator for "family days" in he has the ability to engage with the crowd, the sort of person who can get the first timers to come again. And from my own dealings with him I find him a likeable, friendly man.

It goes without saying the thread attracted a number of personally abusive postings about Derek. Although it is perhaps unfair to single out Derek here, as there are equally abusive threads about the likes of Big Mac and other "personalities".

Now, even if I had not stopped posting when I did I would certainly have stopped posting in the past week.

After the Champion Hurdle a thread appeared with a provocative, indeed potentially libellous, title which questioned the integrity of a leading racing journalist and broadcaster.

I am not going to add further oxygen to the fire by repeating the details here, suffice to say the basic question being raised was a valid one but the tone and underlying implication of the original posting was wholly unnecessary and over the top.

Interestingly the original posting was from a normally anonymous poster however on this occasion he did, at least, add his name at the end.

The “debate” then became quite robust with, unsurprisingly, more snide comments being made.

To their credit the journalist against whom the allegations were made came on the forum and explained their point of view, addressing the points raised.

That should, of course, been the end of the matter.

Of course it wasn’t, the thread then continued with further sniping and abuse.

Robust debate is one thing – gratuitous offence is inexcusable.

It has to be said the journalist in question is more than capable of defending themselves and stating their case. That is not the point, they should not have to defend themselves and they certainly should not have to defend themselves from abusive posters.

The mentality of some of these posters is such they think they can make these offensive comments with impunity and they cannot be traced.

How very wrong they are, not only are they personally liable for what they post they can easily be traced – perhaps they should bear that in mind before posting any more abusive, defamatory, comments.

Or failing that they should just have the guts to say what they feel openly without hiding like the cowards they really are.

As I was always taught, “if you are not prepared to say something to someone’s face then you should not say it at all.”

Hell Have No Fury

As the old saying goes, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and I should know I have scorned more than my fair share in my time – but that is one for the autobiography.

Anyway, as I have recently discovered there is something even worse, even more angry, than a woman scorned and that is an owner scorned, especially when the criticism wasn’t exactly couched in diplomatic terms.

It is said you can insult a man’s wife but insult his horse (and his jockey as well for good measure) and you are in serious trouble.

Interestingly my run-in came not in an article I wrote but on an internet forum.

Ah ha - the good old internet forum.

Internet racing forums are a mixed blessing they allow good lively debate regarding issues relating to racing and most of the time the majority of comment is informed if not sometimes robust.

One of my personal pets hates with internet forums is the anonymous poster who is quite happy to sling abuse at others, hiding behind a nickname like a coward.

The majority of posters, even those who use anonymous user names, are decent people who make valid points, enjoy a robust debate yet at the same time know where to draw the line.

Now I am the first to admit I am not backwards in coming forwards when it comes to criticising something or someone, I freely admit I hold trenchant views on some matters and I am not afraid to express them.

As the old acronym says WYSIWYG – “what you see is what you get”. You may not like me or what I say but at least you know who or what is coming at you.

Anyway I digress because it is, sadly, also possible to overstep the mark when not hiding behind a nickname.

As I have already said, I am one that is not backward in coming forward and many a time I have stopped myself posting something I may later regret or, perhaps, not regret but could possibly phrase better.

Indeed there are certain individuals who, when I respond to them on a forum, I deliberately step back before replying.

With those posters, or if I am thinking of posting something controversial, I tend to write my response out in Word*, go away, have a cup of tea then, usually, delete the response or re-write it before finally posting.

However occasionally, even I sometimes fail to follow my basic rule and that happened a few days ago.

Ironically the thread where all the trouble started was actually quite innocuous, it was about the BHA’s seemingly indifferent attitude to race times clashing.

In the thread, as an aside, somebody asked about what happened to a horse who failed to start a race at Huntingdon.

As I had been at Huntingdon, I responded the horse had planted itself at the start and had refused to race, although he looked OK going down to the start.

A simple enough and innocent enough response, or so I thought. What I hadn’t twigged was the horses owner is also a regular poster on the said forum.

He was quick to respond that the horse had not planted itself at the start. Indeed his horse had been kicked coming out onto the course and that immediately before the start the horse that had kicked him had walked in front of him and his horse had backed off.

However he also added that his jockey, being “unsure of the rules”, held the horse back at the start hoping he would be declared a non-runner.

He, I should also add, said his jockey had called to the starter not to let the field go off but the starter had not heard the request.

Now in hindsight, I should have just had accepted what he said and shut up, or if not ignore it, couched my subsequent response more diplomatically, but I din not.

I picked up on the comment about the jockey and raised a point about it being unfair on punters who backed the horse and I have to admit my response was direct.

Unsurprisingly the response from the owner was very robust, which is fair enough. Unfortunately, immediately below his response was a response from a particular poster who has this ability to, and seems to delight in taking every opportunity possible to, wind me up.

This time I really should have stopped and follow my golden rule of write, sit back, go away, come back and refine the response.

Unfortunately the two posts together, coupled with being absolutely shattered having been up since 04:00 to catch an early flight and the tail end of a bout of ‘flu – none of which are, of course, excuses but are, just maybe, mitigating factors – I fired with both barrels and posted my initial thoughts and response.

To cut a long story short all hell broke loose and I succeeded in not only offending the owner in question but I also attracted a large number of critical, indeed vitriolic, responses from other forum users.

I have to admit most of the responses were justified although some did go over the top and it is no surprise some of the most vitriolic and “personal” comments did come from the cowardly anonymous posters.

I wonder if they are the same people who would be nice to your face and then stab you in the back as soon as you walk away?

However, as I said I did deserve the criticism and I was quick to apologise both publicly and privately to the owner concerned.

It was also an important lesson about the importance of thinking very carefully before you commit your thoughts.

Doing it on paper you have a chance to re-think – with electronic media it is very different matter. It is instant, perhaps too instant. It is oh so easy to fire something off without thinking.

It has been a sobering experience and I have to confess the response to my posting hit me harder than I expected it would (I hope I am not going soft in my dotage) – hopefully it will concentrate my mind and make me follow my own golden rule more strictly in future.

It doesn’t mean, of course, I am going to stop speak my mind but I am certainly going to be more careful in how I phrase my comments in future and everything I post or write will go through the write, cuppa, review process.

As I said a salutary and painful lesson.