Amen

Well it is almost a year since I last went horse racing* and, at the time, I said I would review if I had any future with racing after a year has passed.

However, like a beloved pet who is in the final stages of their life it is better to humanely let it go rather than drag things on unnecessarily.

So I have reviewed, cogitated and digested and the very simple answer is I will not be returning to racing anytime in the near future.

The reality is I have not missed the sport at all - I have missed some of the great people I met whilst going racing. Some I am still in contact with and hope to remain so. One or two I have, sadly, lost contact with but I hope I will be able to catch up with them again in the future.

When I attended my final rules meeting at Fontwell many said I wouldn't last more than a couple of weeks without going racing - indeed the very same thought had crossed my mind. One of my racing buddies sent me a text almost every week saying "going to 'so and so' tomorrow?"

Would I get cold turkey?

Absolutely not - no withdrawal symptoms at all, indeed with the terrible wet weather last winter there was many a day when I though "I'm glad I'm not racing in this weather."

I did wonder how I would be come Cheltenham but that passed without any twangs of guilt, indeed I didn't even watch it on television.

I did almost end up working at Royal Ascot (non racing related) but that fell through.

I've barely watched any racing on television - I think I've watched a few "part" races and the only race I watched all the way through was, surprisingly, the Grand National.

I had planned to watch the Arc, my favourite flat race, last Sunday but actually forgot to turn it on and that probably sums it all up.

I've been keeping half an eye on the racing scene, mainly via the excellent Racing Forum web site, but frankly nothing has changed. The sport is still disorganised. The move to even more artificial surface racing moves relentlessly on and on with the re-opening of Great Leighs as Chelmsford City - you can change the name but will it be any better than its former incarnation. Then there is the planned desecration of Newcastle Racecourse and its conversion to artificial surface racing as well.

It hasn't all been bad news, Paul Bittar who promised so much but delivered so little, turning out to be the great appeaser, is on his way out.

This year has been a revelation in terms of how keen some people are about racing. I had kept the racecards from every meeting I have ever attended, bar three. With the exception of a couple of "sentimental" racecards I decided to sell them all this year and I could not believe how much money I made for them - it did help a lively bidding war developed for them on a certain well known online auction site. Similarly my collection of admission badges also raised a not insignificant sum.

I also kept half an eye on the racing through my dear father-in-law who loved to have a bet and I would put his bets on for him - sadly he passed away in July and that finally broke any final contact I had with the sport.

In a final move I staked the entire contents of all my bookmaker accounts on one final bet and, somewhat fittingly, it lost - had it won I would have bought a new car and had a holiday in memory of father-in-law as it lost it finally broke the link.  

When I gave up the racing I planned to spend more time relaxing, planning to play golf - I haven't touched my clubs once.

I planned to start up a new, non-racing, web-site but I'm still getting round to it (I'm still hoping it will be complete by the end of this year - but I'm not holding my breath).

Talking of web-sites I finally put www.ors-racing.co.uk out of its misery on 1st October, the site name and its content is now up for sale.

Will I ever go racing again - well as the saying goes - "never say never" - I undoubtedly will one day but it will be as a casual observer rather than an enthusiast and it's more likely to be something like the Arc meeting or Cartmel, two of the most beautiful settings for racecourses anywhere in the world.

So to all of you who have followed my rants, moans, hopefully some winners from paddockside a sincere thank-you.

For those I'm still in touch with please stay in touch. For those I've lost touch with (you know who you are) please get in touch.

To all of you may your bets be winners and may you continue to enjoy the sport you follow.

* I said I hadn't been racing for a year, well that wasn't quite true as I did attend a point-to-point meeting back in April, my first in 25 years and only my second ever.      

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? 

More Rule Tweaking

Following on from yet another change to the whip rules may I suggest a few more rule changes, which I believe will help improve our sport.

One important change, already being discussed on the back of the recent changes, is the introduction of centralised stewarding.

For too long the sport has relied on well-meaning amateur stewards who have varying levels of competencies, from pretty good right through to the inexplicable.   In recent years they have been supplemented by stipendiary stewards, employees of the BHA who are supposed to bring some consistency to proceedings.

Now that has worked but only to a limited extent. As with the amateur stewards the standard of the stipes is variable. Most are good but one or two have gained a reputation as being out to make a name for themselves or have been perceived as being biased against particular riders.

The stipes also work on a regional basis and this has led to a situation where, for example, stewarding in the north is perceived to be much stricter than in the south. Certainly many northern based jockeys are of the view they are punished more harshly riding in the north than had they committed the same offence in the south.

The answer is simple – have one amateur and one professional steward on course to deal with local administrative issues but have a central panel, based at BHA headquarters, to deal with any disciplinary enquiries arising during the meeting. Having a central panel should provide a greater consistency and remove the current postcode lottery where different panels will reach different verdicts for what is basically the same offence.

 

Next up is a further "tweak" to the whip rules, which should have been implemented from day one, and it is for serious breaches to also involve withholding not only the rider’s prize money but also the prize money from the trainers and owners as well. That would concentrate the minds more and would discourage connections from encouraging their jockey to adopt a “win at all costs” policy.

The BHA tried to address this by prohibiting connections from “compensating” riders who had been penalised their prize money, however that is a wholly unworkable regulation and could be circumvented so ridiculously easily that it is not worth the paper it is written on.  

There is another change I would make would to penalties. I would scrap the provision whereby Group One race days are automatically excluded from “minor” bans, which can be perceived as being somewhat perverse, and all bans will run on consecutive days.

However I would also offer a “pay-off” against the change.

I would retain the default situation, whereby any ban comes into force 14 days after the ban is given. However I would also allow a rider, at their own discretion and for bans of seven days or less, to have the ban commence at an earlier date, to ameliorate the impact of the ban.

So, for example,  if a ban starting in 14 days time meant a rider missing part of a major meeting, the rider, if they so wished, could choose to have the ban commence earlier, even the day after it was given, should they choose to accept the ban.

This should help reduce the number of, frankly, pointless appeals which always seem to spring up in the build-up to the big festivals.

My next change is an administrative change, whereby trainers should lodge a copy of the riding instructions given to the rider with the clerk of the scales at the point where the jockey weighs out. To ensure confidentiality they could be submitted in sealed envelopes.

The declaration should be signed by the trainer (or their representative) and the rider. Should there then be an enquiry into the running of a particular horse then the written instructions can form part of the enquiry.  It should resolve some of the ambiguity around riding instructions in non-trier cases.

There are quite a few other changes I can think of but these will do for starters.  

RIP BHA

Back in September last year I wrote, following the announcement of Paul Bittar’s appointment:-

“Whilst I wish Bittar well in his new role, he is walking into an impossible job and he is taking on a poisoned chalice.”

It seems the first sip he has taken from the chalice contains hemlock and yesterday’s announcement regarding a near total capitulation to the whip rule changes is another nail in the coffin of British racing.

What I find particularly nauseating is the “I told you so” attitude and rejoicing of those who opposed the changes, they seem to think “common sense” has prevailed and they have won some kind of magnificent victory.

Rejoicing at yesterday’s decision is incredibly myopic and fails to take into consideration the long term impact of the decision.  

In terms of the whip issues themselves.

The jockeys had asked for more clarification as to what would be an acceptable use of the whip, the new rules provided that to a certain extent, although there was always scope for some adjustment.

The reality is, what the jockeys did not want were the much overdue effective punishments for breaking the whip rules, they wanted it both ways. Let’s face it, asking jockeys to support stronger penalties for whip breaches is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

So it was no great surprise that the riders were up in arms when, finally, there were strong punishments introduced for what is effectively cheating.

There was an outcry last week when AP McCoy was banned for excessive whip use when getting Prince Of Pirates up to dead-heat with Brackloon High at Leicester.

Many complained that it was wrong to ban the champion jockey for such a ride. Why?

McCoy broke the rules, as a result of his breaking the rules his horse managed to dead-heat when, in all probability it would have finished second.

“Ah, but the rules are flawed”, is the response of the apologists - It doesn’t matter if the rules are right or wrong, those are the rules which are in place. We cannot pick and choose which rules and laws we choose to follow.

I happen to think the 50mph limit on the A34 through Oxford is pointless and stupid, but if I get caught exceeding that speed limit I somehow think my saying “but I don’t think the limit is right” would hold much sway with the powers that be – and rightly so.

So are those saying McCoy should not have been punished also suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to win at all costs and escape with impunity?

Are they saying McCoy is a multiple champion jockey and he should not be treated so badly? That argument could well be turned round to say as multiple champion jockey McCoy should know better and should, therefore, be treated more harshly.

Then what about connections of Brackloon High, whose jockey remained within the rules but they still had to forfeit outright first place.

If racing wants to endorse a win at all costs, do what you want with just a slapped wrist policy then I want nothing more to do with the sport.

So what about these new changes?

Well for a start they are not going to bring any clarity to the situation and by handing the decision making back to local stewards we will see a return to inconsistency and even more ambiguity.

I wonder how long it will be before supporters of yesterday’s changes will be on their high horses again when the stewards begin making inconsistent decision – I would wager not very long at all.

Will I then be allowed to call them hypocrites?

Such a proposal could only work if we have centralised professional stewards.

Stewarding needs a root and branch change if there is to be any prospect of these new changes working.

The current system of Stewarding does not work and whilst the introduction of Stipes has partly improved the situation, it has also introduced some additional problems.

The quality of the Stipes is far too variable, whilst some are exceptionally good there are one or two who are simply on an ego / power trip.

There would still need to be an on-course Stewarding presence to deal with day-to-day matters as they arise but all disciplinary matters should be dealt with by the central panel. Then the proposed changes may possibly work.

The technology is available and it isn’t rocket science.

One thing is for sure, yesterday’s announcement will do absolutely nothing to bring an end to the whip debate and anybody who thinks it will do is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The decision plays into the hands of those who want to see a total whip ban, even those who want to see the abolition of horse racing period.

However the ramifications of yesterdays decisions goes far beyond the whip debate. It deals a serious, if not fatal blow to the credibility of the administration of the sport in this country.

Even before the whip changes were announced and implemented the BHA had a major credibility issue, the events of the past four months have only served to further undermine their credibility and authority.

If the BHA is to regain any credibility it needs a major overhaul, however even that may not be enough.

Paul Bittar needs to launch an immediate, independent, enquiry into the implementation of the new whip rules. Whatever ones opinion of the rule changes themselves I think it is universally accepted that the timing and method of their introduction was crass.

So far Paul Struthers seems to have been made the scapegoat but that was a case of shooting the messenger, those truly culpable have escaped with impunity. Isn’t there also an irony that the  BHA’s sacrificial lamb then went across to the “other side” and came away with what looks like a victory for the jockeys.

In his infamous interview with Nick Luck on Champions Day the BHA Chairman, Paul Roy, said that as Chairman of the BHA he must assume responsibility for the implementation of the whip rules. After yesterday’s embarrassing capitulation can we expect his resignation today – of course not the man has no honour.          

My fear is no amount of tinkering will dig the BHA out of the hole in which it finds itself.

The whip fiasco has been a distraction but it is but a mere gnat bite compared with some of the other issues the sport is facing.

The biggest issue is the future funding of the sport and, at the risk of repeating myself, the industry and, more specifically, the BHA does not have the ability or wherewithal to negotiate a proper commercial funding model for the industry.

At a time when racing needs strong leadership the BHA has shown itself to be impotent. Yesterday’s capitulation is not something to rejoice about. All it does is underline the lack of direction and leadership in a so called authority that is supposed to run the sport.

Paul Bittar is being lauded as a pragmatic leader, in my eyes he has rolled over and completely kow-towed to the PJA, his credibility is as much in question as the rest of the BHA board.

Whilst I am no fan of the bookmaking industry I can only assume they are absolutely wetting themselves with laughter when they look at the absolute mess in the higher echelons of UK racing.

After all are they not the ones who really run the sport?