Over-Hyped Racing, Noisy Punters and Sanitiseds Channel 4

Apparently there has been some race meeting taking place in California for the past couple of days and judging by my Twitter timeline many, including people who I would normally describe as sensible racing journalists, seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the organisers hyperbole that the meeting is the “Worlds Championships” of racing.

It needs to be remembered that Americans have a strange view of the world – everything outside their borders is considered alien. Think that’s an exaggeration, have a look at US immigration, the queues are quite clearly labelled “US Citizens” and “Aliens”.

To them the USA is the world, ergo anything which happens in the United States is, by default, a World Championship.

Even in sports like rounders, sorry baseball, they call their domestic championships the World Series.

I recall watching the main TV news bulletin when I was in the States and after 25 minutes of frankly irrelevant “local” news there was a summary of world news led by a major earthquake in China which had killed tens of thousands. It barely warranted 20 seconds of coverage but the caption over the VT said it all, it read “CHINA (The World)” – I suppose that was for the benefit of any viewers who though China was part of the US.    

Get real, the Breeders Cup isn’t the Worlds Championship of racing, it’s a jumped up artificial surface meeting with a couple of races on wholly unsuitable turf going thrown in for good measure.

You can call a turd anything you like but at the end of the day it is still a turd.

Ah, it’s supporters will argue, if it is an over-hyped meeting then why do the top European trainers keep sending their horses over there?

The simple answer to that is greed. Make the prize money high enough and, like vultures round a carcase, the owners and trainers will send their horses to the races. Even if they are held on dirt or unsuitable turf conditions. More so when the meeting is held in California, where the Europeans don’t usually fare particularly well.

It’s the same greed that attracts owners and trainers to the racing in Dubai …. again the lure of big money but in the case of Dubai it’s worse than the Breeders Cup.

Owners, trainers, journalists, broadcasters all kowtow to the Dubai racing elite, happy to accept the lavish entertainment and vast prize money, conveniently forgetting these self-same people pay lip service to  human rights.

They are proud to show off their gleaming tower blocks, six star hotels, tax free shopping centres but are not so keen to show the shanty towns and slum conditions the labourers who build these great buildings live in. The foreign workers whose passports are held so they cannot return home until their employers / Dubai Government decide they can. Whose wages are frequently withheld and who, if they dare to protest, are imprisoned.

UK journalists are more than happy to go Dubai and extol the virtues of their generous hosts, yet turn a blind eye to the conditions local journalists have to work under. It’s true that journalists can no longer be jailed for publishing anything the government disapproves of but they can be excluded and banned from publishing anything in the country, which still amounts to state censorship.

None of that matters though because Sheikh Mo, his family and cronies are all good eggs, they give a huge amount of money to UK racing, so we can ignore their little foibles. Plus, of course, our Government don’t want to upset these chappies because we need their oil.

It’s all so nauseating.

One recurrent theme on the Twitter timeline these past two days is how much of a punters graveyard the Breeders Cup has been this year. It often is, especially when it’s at Santa Anita. If it is such a graveyard then why bet?

If you want to watch the racing why does it have to be with a financial investment?  

I actually do wonder how many people follow racing because of the sport and competition or just because it is a betting medium.

How many “followers” of the sport are able to enjoy or watch a race in which they have no financial interest? I have a feeling it may be a minority.

Yes I do bet but not in every race I watch, I may even go weeks without having a bet, yet I still generally enjoy watching the racing, even without having a financial investment.

Yes there are some races that are so bad it is impossible to enjoy, with or without an investment, the opening maiden at Newmarket on Friday being a recent prime example.

Of course betting also clouds the judgement of those watching the races, isn’t it amazing how many times a horse loses because the jockey is bad / useless / bent or the trainer has told the jockey not to try today etc. etc..

In other words I really hate the pocket talking whingers who will look for every excuse under the sun as to why their selected horse failed to win – of course they rarely ever come up with the correct answer, namely they just backed the wrong donkey.

Even more irritating though, are those who shout from the rooftops when they have backed a winner. Perhaps it is because it’s such a rare occurrence they feel the need to tell the world. Perhaps it is a form of narcissism. Who knows?

The majority of my betting is just for fun with a few “serious” bets each year. However if you were standing next to me watching a race in which I have had a “serious” bet you would be absolutely none the wiser as to whether I had won or lost. I also take a view that a bet is going to be a loser and if it wins it’s a bonus.

For me punting is a very private matter, I’m surprised the number of people who ask me how much I bet, it’s a question I never answer, not even my close family or friends know how much I bet, how much I win (or lose).  The only person who knows how much I bet with my serious betting is my commissioning agent.

Finally I hope Channel Four Racing yesterday isn’t an example of how things will be when they have all terrestrial racing from January.

Yesterday was meant to be Michael Hills final day as a jockey yet they announced he would not be riding at Newmarket because he was “feeling unwell.”

The truth was he had failed a pre-racing breath test and was suspended from racing by the Stewards.

Why did Channel Four decide to mislead their viewers in not revealing the true reason for Hills not riding? 

Punters Don't Rule - OK!!!

Sitting in my fridge is a packet of sausages from an upmarket supermarket where, on the pack, it obligingly tells me the very farm where the pigs were raised. It even has a photograph of the jolly, smiling farmer on the back of the pack.

Adding to the farmers coffers by buying his produce gives me the right to tell him how to run his farm, does it not?

Well of course it doesn’t, purchasing his product as a consumer does nothing of the sort, nor should it.

If I don’t like the way he runs his farm I am perfectly at liberty, as a consumer, to boycott his products and if sufficient consumers do so then he may be persuaded to change his methods and that is how it should be.

Turning now to the now tedious whip debate or, as it has been more appropriately called, the whip mass debate, one of the most frequent mantras has been why were punters not consulted? Indeed it seems to be a familiar mantra almost every time any change is made in racing.

My question is, why the hell should punters be consulted?

Punters are only indirect consumers of the racing product either via bookmakers or betting exchanges.

I see no difference in the relationship between the farmer breeding pigs for consumption by an end consumer, in this case the supermarket shopper, and racing providing a product, the race, for use by an end consumer, the punter.

If the purchaser of the sausages has no right to tell the farmer how to run his farm, why should the punter have the right to tell racing how to run the sport?

The punters relationship is with their bookmaker or exchange “opponent” not with racing.

Indeed there is probably a greater case for the pig consumer to have a say as the pig is being raised exclusively for the said pig consumer.

Whereas racing is staged primarily for the owners and trainers, with the punting being an adjunct, so punters are only a secondary player.

Of course the punters will respond “it is our money that is used to finance the sport” that may be correct but only up to a point. Although, strictly speaking, it is the bookmakers money which directly goes into funding the sport, albeit by a totally anachronistic Levy scheme.

It is no different to the way Waitrose pay the pig supplier for my sausages.

Arguably the supermarket is in a direct position to influence how the farmer does his job although only to a limited extent in that the farmer, if he wishes, can still tell the supermarket to get lost.

Similarly the bookmakers, for good or bad, are in a position to influence the industry but, similarly, racing would equally be within their rights to tell them to get lost.

The only way punters could have an indirect influence is by boycotting the product.

The trouble is, of course, it would never happen – well not to the extent it would have a significant impact.

In truth your average betting shop punter couldn’t care less about how the sport is run, if racing is there, they will bet on it.

Most bet for greed, looking for the elusive big win. They will bet on anything they think will give them the chance to win and even if they do fluke a big win, as sure as night follows day, they will lose it all again as greed prevails over common sense.

You only have to look at the increasing popularity of the virtual racing in the betting shops, or the number of people who buy lottery tickets.

Most punters are opportunists, very few make even a small profit from punting, even fewer actually make a living from punting. Most punters are losers.

Do we really want losers influencing how the sport is run?

Look at the proliferation of bookmaker supported all-weather racing, which is nothing more than the horse racing version of a BAGS greyhound meeting. 

Why is it bookmakers support this low grade fare?

Because it is racing in its purest form?

Of course not, it is because it is the type of product the mug punters, who provide most of their profits, lap up and it boosts the bookmakers profits. Who can blame them for encouraging it?

What the racing “purists” seem to be unable to recognise is your average betting shop punter could not care less if the whip rules are changed or unchanged.  If the whip was banned or there were no restrictions. They would still bet to more or less the same levels as before.

There are those who argue racing would not survive without the punter.

I would qualify that by saying racing would not survive in its current form without the punter, but is that actually a bad thing?

It needs to be remembered the Levy is only 50 years old and racing existed long before it was supported by a Levy. It would still exist, even if punters money were to dry up.

It would exist in a leaner, arguably, purer form. There would be much less racing at the lower grade but would that be a bad thing?

I love racing for the sport, seeing horses compete to find out who is the best horse.

Personally I couldn’t care less if betting was allowed on it or not. Yes I do have a bet but I don’t need to have a bet to appreciate a good race or a good athlete.  If betting were banned tomorrow I would still watch racing, I would still go racing.

To those who say without betting there would be no racing, I would say you are wrong.

There will still be the best racing, that will still attract sponsorship. What is wrong with staging the top races as Stakes races.  

There would still be a breeding industry but it would concentrate on the high-end thoroughbred and not the low grade, mass breeding, we have now.

Yes there would be job losses but, hey, welcome to the real world. Why should racing be exempt from real world financial reality?

For me it would be a much better sport in a leaner form.

By all means criticise those who are supposed to run the sport, they deserve it but do so from a position of being a lover of the sport, don’t use punting as a justification.

In the same way buying a pack of sausages confers no rights on telling the farmer how to run his farm, being a punter does not incur any rights on saying how the sport should be run.    

So I have no sympathy, no time, for the punter who thinks he has some God given right, by virtue of being a punter, to tell the sports administrators how to run the sport.