Sunset on Sungate?

Well the Gerard Butler hearing certainly uncovered a nasty little mess and the revelations surprised many of us who thought Butler was simply being made a scapegoat for revealing the Sungate investigation.

Obviously what Butler did cannot be justified in any way, shape or form and his suggestion it was a moment of madness, quite frankly, beggars belief. He was, in my view, lucky to get away with only a five year disqualification. What he did was not only blatant cheating, it endangered the horses in his care.

At least Butler has faced the music for his actions and has been punished, which is more than can be said for the other Newmarket trainers implicated in the Sungate scandal, who have walked away from the farrago absolutely scot free.

Nine trainers used Sungate on their horses, a drug which contains an outlawed anabolic steroid. The drug was administered under veterinary advice, however the supposed rules of “strict liability” should ensure the trainers are solely responsible for what is administered to the horses in their care.

I say the “supposed rules of strict liability” because as we have now seen the strict liability is not as strict as first seems and is indeed flexible liability.

Following a detailed investigation the BHA decided to take no action against the nine trainers involved and they also declined to name the trainers, apparently after taking legal advice.

Of the nine, only Clive Brittain has come out and publicly said he is one of the investigated trainers and all credit to him for doing so. Why are the other eight so reticent in coming forward?

Part of the reason for no action being taken was a loophole in the BHA regulations which said a trainer could only be prosecuted for administering a steroid if the horse fails a dope test – in this case no horses were found with steroids in their system (apart from Butler’s of course).

Luckily the BHA are not subjected to dope testing, otherwise there would be wholesale failures – it strikes me as being an organisation populated by dopes.

So even though the drug records for the 43 horses show Sungate was administered, no action will be taken.

If I were to be cynical I would suggest this is partly to protect the BHA themselves as, by all accounts, the BHA vets were aware of the administration of Sungate when carrying out routine checks of horses medical records and said nothing. You can imagine a trainer at an enquiry raising that as mitigation.

The BHA have now closed the loophole where a horse has to test positive but that is a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Was part of the reason for the BHA not pursuing the case also the inclusion of some very high profile trainers in the list of nine?

As we have already seen from the kid glove handling of Old Mo and Godolphin the BHA are very reluctant to ruffle the feathers of the “big players”.

Why are the other eight trainers not prepared to follow Brittain’s example and hold their hands up?

After all if the administration of Sungate was a genuine, honest mistake as a result of not being aware of the ingredients, what do they have to lose?

Do punters not have a right to know who the trainers are?

The names are common knowledge within the close knit racing community. I believe I know the names of six of the trainers and many know the names of all nine.

Why hasn’t any journalist had the bottle to publish all nine names?

If I knew, for sure, the names of all nine of the trainers then I would have had absolutely no compunction in naming them all, as I believe the information should be in the public domain and is of public interest.  

Will the nine eventually be named, I would like to think so but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

The Sungate nine will realise they have been very lucky indeed. I also have little doubt there will be other trainers round the country also breathing a huge sigh of relief.

I’m sure some trainers will be attending church this Sunday morning thanking their God the sport has such weak governance After all there are sufficient rules under which some action could have been taken against the trainers, even without the presence of a positive test.

It will be interesting to see what happens next time a trainer appears before the disciplinary panel under the “strict liability” rules, any lawyer worth their salt should be able to run rings round what are now strict liability when it suits us rules.  

Will the Butler hearing result in the sun setting on Sungate – many in racing will hope so – I hope not.

Leadership In Racing and Ethical Sponsorship?

Yesterday saw the “Leaders In Racing” conference, basically a big jolly for those who think they are ….erm  …… leaders in racing!

The trouble is, and it’s the sports biggest problem, there are no leaders in racing.

There are plenty who think they are leaders but thinking something does not make it so. Racing is beset by the “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” syndrome.  

I’ve said this before and I will keep saying it, racing is too fractured, too disorganised, to survive in its current format yet those supposedly charged with running the sport cannot, or more accurately, do not want to see it.

The leaders like their little fiefdoms and they want to hold on to their little power bases, even if it is to the detriment of the sport as a whole.

Paul Bittar??

Paul Bittar joined the BHA as the big hope for the sport. He has certainly shown Prime Ministerial qualities in his “leadership”. It is just unfortunate the Prime Minister he has chosen as his role model is the great appeaser Neville Chamberlain. Instead of kow-towing and appeasing the Nazis, Bittar has chosen to kow-tow to and appease the bookmakers.

One of the speakers at the conference was Channel Four’s Sports Editor Jamie Aitchison, who gave a depressing speech, including the classic lines.

"Racing is now with a broadcaster which can challenge perceptions and knows how to market to an audience," said Aitchison.

"We have carried out major market research which says you can't target the horse, it's got to be about the public and human heroes. To bring more people into racing, it has to be about the jockeys, the trainers and the stories."

Excuse me the sport is called HORSE racing . personally I couldn't give two hoots about the backgrounds, personality (or otherwise) of jockeys and trainers.

All I want from my TV coverage is to see the runners in the parade ring and decent coverage of the race without any fancy, arty shots - if we must have the arty shots then save them for the replays.

So is Aitchison seriously suggesting it's pointless concentrating on Frankel and that Queally and Cecil are really the story the public are interested in.

Just who was “market researched” – where is the evidence, or was it some New Labour style forum of trendy lefties?

It looks as though Aitchison is looking to seriously dumb down the coverage.

Equally as worrying Aitchison led the production of Channel Four's Paralympic coverage - well if that is going to be the template for the racing coverage it looks like terrestrial viewers will be subjected to irrelevant "talking heads" and minimal coverage of the actual action and probably heavily delayed. 

- - - - - - -

A fortnight ago Newmarket staged The Sun Chariot Stakes, or to give it its full name The Kingdom Of Bahrain Sun Chariot Stakes.

The very same Kingdom Of Bahrain, which murders those protesting peacefully for basic democratic rights.

The very same Kingdom Of Bahrain which throws doctors and nurses in prison for between 5 and 15 years because they treated protestors who were beaten up by the state. Not forgetting raping and sexually assaulting some of the women doctors and nurses during interrogation.

The very same Kingdom Of Bahrain whose minority, but ruling, Sunni Muslims  operates a system of apartheid against Shia Musims, who form two-thirds of the population.

The very same Kingdom Of Bahrain who denies many migrant workers basic human rights.

I could go on.

Yet it seems Newmarket and, by association, racing seemingly has no qualms in accepting such tainted money!!!

Are there any ethics when it comes to sponsorship or is it a case of give us the money, we don’t care where it comes from.

What next the Jimmy Savile Nursery? 

Whip Rules and Sponsorship

Well as day three of the new whip rule dawns I’m pleased to report that racing has not died a sudden death and that life carries on as normal.

That may be something of a surprise though if you have been taking note of all the doom laden and, in most cases, frankly ludicrous talk there has been on the subject.

There has been so much verbal diarrhoea spouted it is surprising there is not an outbreak of oral cholera within the industry.

The problem is there are so many entrenched and emotive opinions in the debate that many, on both sides, are not even prepared to listen to what the other side has to say.

As I have previously stated, I generally welcome the new rules and, even more so, the strong deterrent penalties, whilst having some reservations about the actual numerical guidelines, especially in national hunt racing.

Despite these reservations I unlike, it seems, many am prepared to give the new rules a go and see how they work.

Interestingly the first day of the new rules saw two bans handed out by the Salisbury Stewards and they, in a way, exemplified both sides of the argument.

Both bans came in the same race.

Kieren Fox was handed a 15 day ban for hitting his horse eleven times inside the final furlong, exceeding the new limit by four strokes.  In my view this is a pretty open and shut case as Fox flagrantly disregarded the new rules, almost cocking a snook at the new regulations and, as a result has paid the price. Needless to say connections of the horse, which went on to win, defended the rider clearly showing their philosophy that winning at all costs is more important than abiding by the rules.

That the horse was able to win and retain the race by virtue of breaking the rules illustrates the folly of not withholding the winning owners prize money as well, indeed of not disqualifying the winning horse.

Some argue the winning owners should not be punished due to the wrongdoing on a rider. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion it could be argued a horse should never be disqualified no matter how serious a riding offence a jockey commits. That is plainly untenable.

In addition the owner is effectively employing the jockey to ride his horse. It seems racing is the only industry in the country where employers (the owners) are not ultimately held accountable for the actions of their employees (the jockeys).

The five day ban handed to Richard Hughes in the same race, however, shows the difficulty of having an absolute limit. Most reasonable observers of the sport would have found very little wrong with Hughes’ ride but he was banned for exceeding the new rules by one strike inside the final furlong. He was arguing one of the strikes was given for safety reasons. Yes, technically he is in breach of the new rules but his ban does illustrate some of the ambiguity and I believe a ban under the entry point of five days would probably have been more appropriate. It will be interesting to see what happens when Hughes appeals.

In the next few days we have Cheltenham’s first meeting under the new rules and, of course, Champions Day at Ascot, both will be extremely interesting, both in terms of what the jockeys do and how the Stewards will act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sponsorship has become an important factor in the sport and with diminishing Levy returns the income from sponsorship has become imperative for the racecourses.

I do wonder if race courses would draw the line at some forms of sponsorship?

As I write this I am thinking of one race in particular, namely the Sun Chariot Stakes, one of Newmarket’s major races of the year, for the race is sponsored by The Kingdom Of Bahrain.

Last week in what amounted to a political show trial, a group of doctors and nurses were convicted of various “subversion” offences with the convictions seemingly made on the basis of “confessions” extracted by alleged torture and sexual abuse. In truth these doctors and nurses were being prosecuted or should that be persecuted because they followed the Hippocratic Oath and treated anti-government protesters during the recent uprising.

Notwithstanding these show-trials the human rights record in Bahrain is appalling and one wonders why racing would want to be associated with such a repugnant regime.

As far as racing is concerned is it a matter of grabbing the money at any cost without considering the morality of its source?

Does racing really want to be financed by blood money?

It will be very interesting to see if racing continues its sponsorship links with Bahrain in 2012 and it will be interesting to see how it responds to the backlash if it does.  

Whilst Bahrain is perhaps an extreme example, it is not the only example of racing accepting money from questionable regimes or businesses and it is a subject worthy of much more detailed research and investigation – watch this space.

Travesty Of Justice and Not In My Back Yard

So Kieren Fallon escapes a driving ban because it would cause him exceptional hardship, what complete and utter bollocks to coin a phrase.

He was in court because he failed to inform the police of the driver of a car caught in a speeding trap, a car registered to Fallon.

Fallon told the court, 'I wasn't the driver. I had a driver for a week because I was going to Scotland. We had his name and date of birth but didn't have his address. That was the mix-up.'

So Fallon expects us to believe he employed a driver and all he knew about him was his name and date of birth? He did not bother making a record of his address or make a note of his driving licence details, that is incredulous and although he may have managed to convince the magistrates he does not convince me. Presumably this driver was paid – was he paid in cash? Are there no payroll records? Was he employed via an agency? If so they would have records. Indeed is there any evidence this so called driver actually exists? Or was Fallon actually driving the car himself?

Fallon told the court “I am no longer famous and he could not afford a full time driver.” Again that is absolute rubbish and it is simply a case of Fallon worming his way out of yet another embarrassing situation in which he finds himself.

At his best Fallon is one of the best, most talented, jockeys of his generation, as an individual he has shown time and time again he is a flawed character, lacking in principals and a generally unpleasant and unreliable individual.

He managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Lincoln Magistrates but frankly if he turned round and told me it was raining outside I would still want to go outside myself, just to make sure.

The decision of the Lincoln Magistrates makes a complete mockery of the law.  

In her first speech as Chairman of the Racecourse Owners Association Rachel Hood made the case for a three tier structure of racing, with the lowest tier being self funded.

It is nice to know Ms Hood reads my musings as I proposed something very similar over a year ago.

By all accounts Ms Hood was listened to politely as she made her speech, it is the shame she was not able to demonstrate the same civility when Lord Derby made his speech at the Annual HWPA Derby Awards.

Ms Hood was protesting about Lord Derby’s proposals to build a new housing estate in Newmarket and was one of a group heckling Lord Derby.

Of course this was a classic demonstration of NIMBYism (not in my back yard), something at which the British excel. Be it protesting about wind farms, high speed rail links or 1,001 other projects.

Of course these NIMBY people will never admit their motives are selfish, it is always for the greater good – of course it is.

It has to be said a vociferous minority of population of Newmarket seem to be the world champions when it comes to NIMBYism. They will object to anything be it a supermarket – objected to a supermarket being built saying there was no demand. By all accounts the supermarket is doing a roaring trade and is profitable. They objected to a budget hotel being built – the argument being there was no call for a hotel, the truth being they didn’t want any commercial opposition to the grossly overpriced hotels which already exist in the town. Ignoring the fact a reasonably priced hotel would bring more visitors to the town and thus more money into the local economy.

Basically the vociferous minority of Newmarket NIMBYists just do not live in the real world – if they had their way Newmarket residents would still be getting around by horse and cart.

Recently a number of the NIMBYist’s acolytes made a move to try and get Lord Derby removed as patron of the Horse Writers And Photographers Association (HWPA).

Unsurprisingly the move was overwhelmingly rejected, making it clear most HWPA members did not want the association tarnished by their grubby little campaign.

Hopefully in future Ms Hood will treat others with the same respect she was shown when making her speech.