Injuries And Starts

I’m returning to one of racing’s thorny issues, one some people in the sport would rather be swept under the carpet, the issue of what happens when a horse is badly injured in a race.

My regular reader will know last time I covered this subject it resulted in getting Hexham to stop using a flatbed trailer for removing fatally injured horses from the course, I’m not sure I will be able to achieve the same level of success this time, as this issue is far more complex and, indeed, does not have a “right or wrong” answer.

There was been a great deal of Tweeting last weekend following Dansimar breaking down in the Handicap Hurdle at Sandown on Saturday afternoon.

It was after the final hurdle on the first circuit that Dansimar broke her leg and was pulled up and dismounted by her rider.

The map shows where the screens were (S) and where the horse pulled up (H) (image © Google Earth)

Anybody with a basic knowledge of physics will know it is impossible, without a collision, to stop immediately, so it was quite a few yards after the hurdle that Dansimar eventually pulled up. This resulted in it taking a while to actually get the screens to and up around the stricken horse.

Putting up the screens was further hampered by the combination of the screens being a large size, strong winds and there only being two lads tasked with handling the screens. As a result it, arguably, took longer than is ideal to put the screens up and, when up, they struggled to keep the screens in place.

There is actually no time specified for the mounting of screens, the BHA guidelines say it should be rapid and, taking into account the position of the stricken horse and the prevailing conditions I don’t think the screens could have been erected more rapidly. The only possible improvement there could have been is more people available to handle the screens from the outset.

It is a very difficult situation when a horse is stricken in front of the enclosures and there is a delicate balance between doing what is necessary to ensure the horse suffers as little as possible and the “sensibilities” of the spectators.

When a horse is injured on the far side of the course or away from spectators then it is possible for the vet to despatch the horse even before the screens are put up.

In front of the stands this is clearly more difficult.

I can still vividly recall Joe Lively breaking his leg in front of the stands at Cheltenham on New Years’ Day and it took far longer than at Sandown for the screens to be erected, yet I don’t recall any outcry about the delay and Joe Lively’s injury was “visually” far worse than that of Dansimar. Perhaps the fact Dansimar was a lovely grey tugged at the heartstrings more than had she been a plain bay?

There are other issues around putting horses down when close to the crowds. There was a vet on scene very quickly but she did not seem to have the means to put Dansimar down and it was not until after the race, a good four or five minutes after the injury occurred, another vet arrived and did what was necessary.

Even then it seems they opted to put her down using an injection rather than shooting her. Even though the gun has a silencer there seems to be a reluctance to shoot horses when the injury has occurred in front of the enclosures. Indeed looking back over the years I can only once recall hearing the “crack” of a gun when a horse has died in front of the stands.

I suppose the issue is what should be the greatest priority? Should it be ensuring the horse is relieved of its suffering as soon as humanly possible or is it acceptable to delay in order not to upset the sensibilities of the crowd?

The “simple” answer would be to ensure the horse is relieved of any suffering as soon as possible but life, of course, is not that simple.

I recall attending a French provincial meeting where there were no screens on site at all and a horse had to be put down in front of the crowd – it was a thoroughly unpleasant, distressing sight, especially as it was injected rather than shot.

So I would not advocate putting a horse down in front of the stands before the screens were erected.

However I would question whether delaying putting a horse down to avoid having to shoot it is a good idea. Most racegoers are realistic and when they see a horse with a serious injury they are aware of the consequences. With a properly silenced gun there would only be a small crack and, again I think most racegoers would “accept” it was a necessary thing to do.

In this country we do have some of the best, if not the best, racing welfare conditions in the world, be it for horses or jockeys. There is little, if anything, fundamentally wrong with the system we currently have.

Sadly fatalities do happen in racing, it is something we as followers of the sport have to accept. It does not mean we have to like what happens when horses are hurt, nor should we become desensitised to it . . . . indeed, if the day ever came when I was not moved by a horse being killed or injured, then I would know it was time to walk away from the sport.

Just a couple of suggestions which could, perhaps, be considered.

• Courses should consider having extra sets of screens available, away from fences but in front of the enclosures so they can be erected more quickly.
  

• When conditions are windy then extra staff should be utilised to assist with erecting and holding up the screens.

• When a horse does need to be put down the vets use the quickest means available to do the job, even if that does entail using a gun in front of the stands.

Sandown’s meeting on Saturday provided another controversial talking point, that of fair starts.

Of course this particular controversy just happened to happen before the big handicap of the afternoon.

The controversy began when one of the fancied runners, Lush Life, spread a plate and had to be re-shod at the start.

As an aside a large number of observers seem to see no issue with runners being re-shod whilst at the start.

I must confess I have reservations.

Is it fair that his 19 rivals had to continue walking round at the start, still with riders on their back, whist he was re-shod? As I said though, that is another issue.

Once he was re-shod she walked away from the field , presumably to trop-up to get accustomed to the new shoes.

He was still off the main group of runners when the starter let the field go, effectively ending any chance he may have had of winning the race.

So, in effect, the race was delayed to allow a leading fancy to be re-shod, yet the tardy start effectively nullified the reason for the delay – another embarrassing moment for the sport and featured on terrestrial television as well.

The Stewards held an enquiry, the findings of which revealed little and the matter was referred to the BHA.

Now if this were a one-off it may, just may, be excusable. However barely a week goes by where we do not have some form of farcical start on the NH circuit, where either a runner “gets a flyer” or where the field are really badly strung out, even before they set off.

Now some will argue that in, say a three mile chase, those who get left behind at the start have plenty of time to regain the lost ground. That may or may not be the case, it certainly is not the point.

Does it not look amateurish, indeed just plain incompetent, that in an event where the result can be decided by a matter of a single pixel in a photo finish, runners are allowed to set off with a 10, even 20, length advantage?

Like the issue of dealing with injured horses there is no easy solution. Starting stalls are clearly a no brainer for national hunt racing.

So what is the answer?

How about - at courses where runners circle on the track itself, why can’t a tape be stretched across the track a specified distance behind the starting tape, just as they do behind the stalls in flat races. Whilst not completely eliminating staggered starts it should certainly reduce some of the extreme cases.

For courses that use collecting areas, ensure the exit from the collecting area is within a maximum distance from the starting tapes and, again, have a tape to ensure runners cannot go too far back on the track itself.

I accept the latter suggestion may require courses to make some configuration changes, or even some minor tinkering to race distances but I would have thought it achievable with some thought and discussion.

What price credibility?

Monday Morning Conundrum

Here is a Monday morning conundrum for you – who “owns” the racing results?

Now it may seem a somewhat trite, almost insignificant, question to the average racegoer, however within the world of the racing media it is becoming a major issue.

Allow me to explain.

After each race the judge produces a results slip which shows the finishing order, times (either the actual time run in flat races or the time behind the winner for national hunt races) and distances for all the runners in a race – in effect the official result.

Historically this information was produced by Racetech as part of the integrity service and copies of the results slips were supplied to the press room, mainly for the benefit of the PA, Raceform and Timeform racereaders but other hacks sometimes make use of the sheet to check the finishing position of a particular horse. These sheets are used to provide the full finishing order, as seen on the Racing Post and Sporting Life websites, amongst others.

At the same time as the acrimonious split of racing coverage between SIS and TurfTV there was a change in the provision of the finishing data, which effectively meant results sheets were produced by either SIS or TurfTV.

For those working in the press room this meant very little difference, the sheets were still supplied, the only difference being the format was slightly different depending on which organisation produced the results sheet.

Well that was the case until 1st January this year when the TurfTV tracks said the slips were no longer going to be supplied to the press room.

This is where the situation becomes a little bit complex. The media rights for the TurfTV tracks, which are effectively those tracks signed up to RUK, plus Ascot, are managed by a company called Racecourse Media Group (RMG).

As well as dealing with the media rights of the 30 racecourses, RMG also own 50% of Turf TV, additionally it is also the holding company which owns Racing UK – so it has its fingers in quite a few pies.

However not content with the involvement it already has RMG now wants to charge other media outlets to have access to the official results slips.

They are having a laugh aren’t they?

Can you imagine the outcry if the Premier League or Football League suddenly announced they would charge media outlets to report on scores, goal scorers and times of goals? There would be questions in the house.

It also seems the management of RMG have very short memories. Otherwise they would recall the grand initiative of the then BHB to charge bookmakers and broadcasters to use “racing data”.

Quite rightly the courts kicked the idea into touch.

With the results data there appears to be even less “justification” for selling it, indeed it would be interesting to see if RMG’s claim to actually own the data would stand up in court.

My belief is it would not and it is also my personal belief RMG are taking the view most media outlets would be reluctant to pursue the case in the courts due to the current economic climate and the costs involved. In other words they seem to be hoping the money will be coughed up just for an easy life.

The editor of the Racing Post, Bruce Millington, has been most vociferous in his condemnation of the move, probably because his organisation is being hit most of all.

Also, as often happens in cases like this, a great deal of fog emerges.

For example some have tried to point the finger of blame at the door of the BHA, saying it was their decision to charge for the data, something denied by BHA spokesman Paul Struthers.

In the scheme of things the attempt to charge for the data is not earth shattering, the biggest impact being on those organisations like Raceform / Racing Post and Timeform.

Indeed the problems are not insurmountable as anybody on-course can record the finishing order of a race and it only takes a few minutes with a stopwatch and a recording of the race to calculate the winning distances.

What is worrying is the seeming arrogance of RMG in thinking they have the right to suddenly charge for information that has been freely available since racing began.

Meanwhile at the SIS courses life continues as normal.

If having to pay for basic data is going to upset some sections of the media there may be even worse news to come.

I can exclusively reveal one of the major racecourse groups is considering charging the press to attend their meetings. As a senior executive commented, “Bookmakers have to pay to ply their trade on the racecourse, so why shouldn’t journalists?”

An interesting argument.

If you suddenly find your favourite course suddenly starts receiving less coverage across the media you will know why!!!

Who knows, will they be charging us to park next?

Now that would be interesting. Thankfully few racecourses actually charge for parking and, frankly it is just as well.

Only a handful of courses offer anything approaching decent parking and the number of courses offering a proper, hardstanding, car park can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Indeed parking at some courses can be an absolute nightmare. In a way I am lucky that with all the meetings I attend I have only once had to be towed out of the car park. That experience was all the more galling as I had been told by the parking steward the ground was better “over there”. Had I parked where I originally planned, and not in the bog to which he sent me, I would have escaped fine

That does not mean I have not had some lucky escapes. I always dread going to Towcester after it has been raining, the cloying clay soil is not confined to the racetrack and the car park soon gets chewed up.

However last Monday, at Fakenham, I seriously thought I would be calling on the services of their tractor. It had been raining hard all day and the ground was saturated.

Even parking the car proved to be a challenge, with the wheels spinning, quickly turning the paintwork a muddy brown. Getting out of the car my spirits dropped as I saw my front wheels resting on an indented, bald patch of ground.

After racing my worse fears were confirmed as, even in second gear, the wheels just spun as I tried to pull away. I did notice some good “virgin” ground behind me though and having nothing to lose I threw the car into reverse, managed to get enough traction to set off backwards, onto the better ground and was then able to get enough traction to drive across and out – a lucky escape.

I suppose most courses opened before the days of mass transportation and if they only race a few days a year I can understand provision of car parking space not to be a high priority but it is still frustrating when you have to park in what is effectively a boggy field.

Car parking isn’t the only challenge when driving to the races, the increasing cost of fuel is becoming even more significant.

This time last year it cost just under £50 to fill my tank with petrol, now the cost is nearer £60 and with, some weeks, having to fill up three times it is getting very expensive.

So it is time to find alternatives and I am certainly going to let the train take the strain more in future.

Provided you book ahead some great bargains can be achieved.

I am off to Carlisle on 9th February. By road it is 256 miles each way, about 4½ driving (I am of an age where I need a couple of “comfort” stops on such a long drive), which works out at just over a tank and a half of petrol, so not much change out of £100.

Yet by advance booking I am travelling on a direct train from home to Carlisle, a 3¼ journey, costing only £30.50 return (normal fare £163) and by booking, for free, a seat with a table and power socket I can also make better use of the travelling time.

My final thought for this week.

Why is it, when the results of races can be decided by photo finishes - as much as one pixel can make the difference between victory and defeat, starters sometimes allow such ragged starts at the beginning of National Hunt races.

Take a look at Ascot’s opening race on Saturday and tell me if the start was by any means fair?