Dettori Banned

So, as expected, Frankie Dettori picks up a six month ban for testing positive for a “banned substance” in France.

The French will not reveal when the banned substance is but it has been widely reported and, significantly, not denied by the Dettori camp that the substance involved is cocaine.

To his credit, although when faced with incontrovertible evidence would any other option be viable, Dettori has held his hands up and admitted the offence and then immediately went into what he thought was damage limitation mode.

He describes the incident as a “moment of madness” and says he has let down “the sport he loves” and worse of all “let down his wife and children.”  

In an interview with the Daily Express he goes on to say, 'I was in a dark place, I was very low. My job was going down the drain.'

All very noble expressions but let’s look at them in a bit more detail.

He describes what happened as a “moment of madness” – well it’s not a single moment of madness is it as he already has “form”, having received a police caution for possession of cocaine back in 1993. He piously claimed he learned his lesson back then so did he suddenly have amnesia in 2012?

So let’s assume his “moment of madness” claim is true, then all that can be said is Dettori must be a very unlucky man. He has, twice in his life, had some “Charlie” and both times he has managed to get caught – now that is either desperately unlucky or it defies credibility. People can form their own views on that one – I know which I would tend to believe.

Dettori goes on to say he has let down “the sport he loves” – I have no doubts he does love the sport after all he has made his fortune from it and he is, undoubtedly, a brilliant rider. However he has also exploited the sport to his advantage.

Dettori is probably the first jockey to exploit the PR machine to build a Dettori brand. With his trademark flying dismount and his carefully nurtured image as a cheeky Italian always ready with a smile and a quote. The darling of the public because he is the complete contrast to many of his weighing room colleagues who keep themselves and let their skills in the saddle do the talking.

What many forget is the public persona is the one Dettori and his advisers want the public to have and, as is often the case, the reality is different from the spun image.

Most in the press room will have stories of extremely difficult encounters with a moody Dettori.  Many describe him as a thoroughly unlikable character. Yes he is fine if giving an interview that will help nurture the image but try getting a normal racing quote and it’s a different story.

I’ve seen him launch four letter tirades at racegoers who have tried to speak with him after racing.

But at the end of the day Dettori has been the face of racing so his little foibles are overlooked for the sake of the sport.

What’s next, oh yes, he has let down his wife and children.

He has let down his children to the extent the bad publicity will probably result in his kids getting quite a lot of stick at school but that’s about as far as it goes.

The truth is he should have thought of the impact on his children before he decided to indulge.

As for letting down his wife – I don’t think so.

Finally there is his justification for what happened, 'I was in a dark place, I was very low. My job was going down the drain.'

So that makes it all OK does it?

There are many people in many walks of life who are under real pressure yet they do resort to talking illegal drugs.

To be honest the utterances from Dettori sounds like somebody wallowing in their own self-pity. “My job was going down the drain” rather dramatic stuff – for somebody working in a factory in an area of high unemployment then the prospect of losing ones job is a big issue.  

Lets face it Dettori losing his job at Godolphin wasn’t exactly going to leave him and his family starving with the bailiffs at his door. He was still going to have a very lucrative few years as a freelance.

So I’m sorry those mealy mouthed words cut no ice with me and I don’t think many hard working people struggling to make ends meet would have much sympathy with Dettori’s excuse either.

Lest anybody thinks I have a heart of stone I am aware jockeys have a hard life, they have to maintain their weight, they potentially risk their lives every time they get on a horse and they need a hell of a lot of self-discipline. It is not something I would want to do – not least I don’t think they will ever have a minimum weight of 14 stone.

However most jockeys seem to managed without resorting to illegal drug use.

For those who do fail support is needed and I have to commend an excellent statement from PJA boss Paul Struthers yesterday (http://www.thepja.co.uk/documents/Frankie%20Dettori%20Statement.pdf)

Dettori has not helped himself. He has created a “brand” in the public eye which works well if he can live up to that image. The trouble is if you set yourself up on  pedestal the fall is much greater when things do go wrong as Dettori is finding out.

Dettori has a problem which I hope he can get sorted out. I believe it would be much better for him if he went away quietly and sorted his issues out, rather than issuing frankly nauseating statements which are unedifying and only make him look even worse.  

The Politics Of Envy

Before I go any further I must categorically say I am not a flag waver for the bookmakers, far from it.

In my ideal world bookmakers would play no part in horse racing and the sport would be healthily funded, as in other racing jurisdictions, by a Tote monopoly.  

Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and thanks to some ill-conceived legislation in the early 1960’s racing has been lumbered with a funding model which may (although I would question even that) have been appropriate for that day and age but which is now wholly inappropriate for the 21^st Century.

The recent “scandal” surrounding the taxation affairs of companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Google has again turned attention to the tax affairs of bookmakers.

You will note I placed the word scandal in quotes. For the simple reason I don’t view it as a scandal. The companies involved have done nothing illegal and are merely exploiting the taxation system to their best advantage.

If any Government introduced the draconian tax measures being naively called for by some, investment in this country would virtually end overnight and our economy would make Greece look positively flush.  

Of course there have been sanctimonious, mealy mouthed, protestations from all the usual suspects.

MP’s have described the actions of the companies as immoral. Two comments on that, firstly given the recent track records of Parliamentarians in relation to their expenses I don’t think they are in any position to Pontificate. Secondly it is not the position of MP’s or indeed anyone to tell others what is morally right or wrong. Morals are very personal to individuals; everyone has a different moral compass, developed by a combination of nurture and personal circumstances.

My moral code is unique to me and whereas I may not approve of the morals of others, what right do I have to impose my own moral code on others? The same should apply to politicians.

I agree there needs to be certain standards maintained in society but they come about through general consent and consensus, not by imposition by a random sample of 600 odd MP’s – and the term “odd” can be applied in more ways than one.

It could also be argued the “loopholes” being exploited by these companies are here because of the inability of successive Governments to frame strict enough legislation, although the pragmatic truth is the loopholes are there for a very good reason

Also how many of the influential people beating their chests about this issue are self-employed or work with freelance contracts? Do they not employ accountants to minimise their tax liabilities?

Many of these pontificating politicians earn decent incomes with extra-curricular activities, such as public speaking engagements. You can bet your bottom dollar they don’t pay full whack tax on the income derived from those activities.

Does anyone in their right mind pay more tax than they need to?

Anyway, I digress, as I said attention has once again turned to the bookmakers and their affairs.

Bookmakers are, once again, being attacked for moving offshore in order to minimise their tax and Levy liabilities.

Why shouldn’t they?

They are, in the main, public companies which have a legal responsibility to maximise returns for shareholders and if, perfectly legally, they choose to offshore their businesses to maximise returns why shouldn’t they?

There was a “debate” on Twitter last night around this issue.

I say “debate” because it’s interesting to note as soon as I began to question one of the arguments being put forward, a particular user who, until that point, I had a great deal of respect for and who I thought to be an intelligent, rational person, decided to block me, thus preventing any further, discussion.

It’s interesting to see people in their true, arrogant, colours.

Anyway, I digress again, the tenet of last night’s discussion is that businesses, including bookmakers (and other shops), should be forced to display, in their windows, details of where they pay their taxes. The “logic” behind this being customers could make an informed choice as to whether they choose to transact business with these organisations.

It is a ridiculous suggestion, not least because most punters / customers could not give a toss about where companies or organisations are based. Your average betting shop punter or man on the Clapham omnibus couldn’t care less if his bookmaker / shopkeeper pays 50% tax in the UK or 1% in Outer Mongolia.

For the small minority who really do care about the tax affairs of the businesses they do business with, the information is already easily available within the public domain.

It is being rather simplistic but those people who are generally exercised by the issue can be placed into one of two categories.

First, the Guardian reading, Champagne Socialists, who tend to be the biggest hypocrites of the lot – pretending to be supporters of the “working man” Which they are, provided their only contact with the “working man” is the chap they employ to decorate little Tristan’s nursery. Although in that instance the man is likely to be Polish as he’s cheaper, and who will, of course, be paid cash in hand to avoid tax.

Indeed how many of those self-righteously complaining have paid a tradesman “cash in hand” to carry out some work or have done “cash in hand” work themselves – and that is illegal!!   

The second category are those for whom the politics of envy is still a mantra, those who believe the crap spouted by the group above, those who generally have no self-ambition, who take the easy option and always look for somebody else to blame for their parlous position.

In the past few weeks I’ve see supposedly intelligent people calling for legislation to protect racing from FOBT’s, legislation to force businesses to display taxation information, legislation to protect racings funding. Legislate, legislate, legislate!!!!

Why should there be legislation to protect racing? Why should racing have special treatment? Why should racing not stand or fall on its own two feet, like any other industry?

The truth is racing has relied on a funding model which is no longer fit for purpose. Instead of facing up to the impending crisis it has buried its head in the sand and done nothing. The sport is paying the price for years of impotent, incompetent, “leadership”.

In parallel the bookmakers have been very competently and very astutely managed, to the extent they now hold all the aces, whilst racing holds a busted flush.

Much as I like my racing I also don’t want legislators wasting time discussing protectionist legislation simply to protect an industry which is floundering as a result of its own incompetence, they have far more important issues to deal with.

I don’t want to see legislation introduced to restrict the use of FOBT’s. The argument is trotted out that the machines are addictive, so are many things addictive. Alcohol is more addictive than FOBT’s and causes far more harm within society.

Many of those jumping on the “ban the FOBT” bandwagon are claiming their objections are from the position of protecting addictive gamblers, when in reality what they want is to reduce the competition for racing. If protection of racing is their motive that is fine – just be honest and say so.

As for “protecting” those addicted to FOBT’s – whatever happened to self responsibility? Of course, silly me, our Guardian reading Champagne socialists don’t believe the “plebs” should have any responsibility – the Nanny State should be looking after them and telling them what to do and think.   

I don’t want to see “politically” motivated witch hunts against organisations that are running their businesses efficiently and maximising profits using perfectly legitimate means. Clearly they are jealous of the success of those businesses.

The politics of envy stinks and has no place in any century, let alone the 21^st.

Piss Up In A Brewery?

Two of my “favourite” bugbears have come to the fore in the past few days, so it’s time, once again to go into full Victor Meldrew mode and say “I don’t believe it”

Or that is what I should be saying, the sad reality is I do believe it, as once again racing shows how it has the ability to make itself look absolutely stupid without really having to try.

The first is repeated inspections and in the last three days we have seen examples of them going both ways.

On Friday Musselburgh played the rolling inspection game but with a new twist, whereby they moved the goalposts, along with the first race time.

After a couple of failed inspections they called yet another inspection for 12:00 and moved the first race time back from 12:10 to 12:40.

When the course failed to pass the 12:00 inspection they moved the first race back to 13:10 pending a further inspection but had to, eventually, call the meeting off at 13:00, some 50 minutes after the original scheduled time of the opening race.

Roll forward two days and it was the turn of Leicester to play musical inspections and an almost similar pattern followed.  This time the controversial decision was taken to race just after midday, with the first race scheduled for 12:50 being put back 20 minutes.

I say controversial decision as the decision to race was not met with universal acclaim with, apparently the jockeys being more happy to race than the trainers. As a consequence 31 of the 62 declared runners did not run.

It’s also clear the course could not have been fit to race when the meeting was given the go ahead as ground staff frantically continued to work on the course right up until the off time of the first race.

Now I can understand courses wanting to give meetings every opportunity to go ahead, especially in the case of Leicester who have lost eight meetings already this year, including five on the bounce.

However is making such late calls fair on racegoers, their customers, or is getting Levy income more important.

Not all racegoers live within ten miles of a racecourse, is it acceptable for them to be expected to make what could be long and ultimately fruitless journeys.

On Friday, whilst the Musselburgh saga was unfolding I tweeted, “If I were cynical I would say it's a case of getting punters in and into the bars, mitigating losses if off”.

In truth I wasn’t being cynical at all – after all the bar and catering staff will be in place and will presumably need to be paid, so why not get the punters  in the doors and get some income from alcohol sales?

I recall driving to one of our major racecourses where they were having an ongoing inspection saga, it was a really frosty day and it looked like going to the line.

Listening to the radio as I drove to the course a spokesman for the course was interviewed and they, maybe inadvertently, gave the game away when they said, “racegoers should still come to the course because even if we call the meeting off all the bars will be open and the away racing will be shown.”

The trouble with these ongoing inspections is the decision ultimately comes down to the course in the shape of the Clerk Of The Course and the Stewards.

The former is an employee of the course and the latter (apart from the Stipes) are appointed by the course so will therefore be disinclined to upset the course.

The course, understandably, has an interest in the meeting going ahead so will always tend to err on the side of proceeding where there is even the remotest glimmer of hope.

Whilst in no was questioning the professionalism of the Clerks, they are put in a difficult position because of their closeness to the course.

Where the decision to race is a close call it is my belief the final decision should be taken away from the courses themselves as they have too big a vested interest. The BHA employ course inspectors and where it looks like being a close call as to whether racing can proceed the decision to race or not should be made by the course inspector and stipendiary stewards.

Additionally a meeting should be called off if the course is not fit to race two hours before the scheduled off time of the opening race. Yes it may mean some meetings may fall which may otherwise have gone ahead but it would result in less inconvenience to racegoers and trainers and would be better PR for the sport.

The other bugbear is race times.

The big race on Saturday was the Hennessy Gold Cup, one of the biggest handicaps of the season, a race that takes around 6’30” to run and it was scheduled to start at 15:10 on Saturday.

Towcester’s final race of the afternoon, an insignificant bumper, was scheduled to begin at 15:15, so it was guaranteed to clash with the Hennessy.

Racing cannot organise even the simple things.

First of all it was crass bad planning to schedule the Towcester bumper to start at that time, why could it not have been scheduled for a 15:20 start?

However it was announced over the PA at Towcester that the start of the bumper would be held back until after the Hennessy finished and the Hennessy would be shown on the big screen, with commentary – excellent planning on the part of Towcester.

So what happened?

The Towcester bumper went off just as the leaders cleared the last in the Hennessy.

Why the hell could they not have held the start of the bumper back for a matter of another 30 seconds?

The starter has absolutely no excuse for not knowing about the Hennessy as it was being shown on the big screen with the commentary on the PA and the Towcester start was immediately in front of the stands - so unless the starter was deaf and / or stupid he could not have failed to have been aware the Hennessy was still running. Indeed even some of the jocks were watching the big race on the big screen.

It is telling that as soon as the field was off the starter sprinted to the car park - presumably to make a swift exit.

Commentator Ian Bartlett was left with something of a dilemma - did he start the commentary of the bumper or did he allow the Hennessy commentary to finish - we ended up with both being broadcast over the PA.

At least the director in the scanner van didn’t cut off the end of the Hennessy on the big screen, I think there would have been a riot had he done so, as I would say 97% of the crowd (and 100% of the press room) were watching the Hennessy as opposed to the bumper.

The words piss-up and brewery spring to mind.

For Sale - One Poisoned Chalice

Quite a few people have expressed surprise that John Smith’s have decided not to sponsor the Grand National after next year’s renewal.

My only surprise is that people are surprised at the decision.

John Smith’s will have sponsored the race for ten years and it is a sponsorship which does not come cheaply and they cannot deny their association with the race has, generally, been well worth the investment in terms of publicity.

Times, however, are changing and it is very easy to see why pouring so much money into the race is looking to be an investment which makes poor business sense, indeed it is in great danger of becoming a liability.

I don’t always agree with the BBC’s racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght but in an analysis piece on the BBC Sport website he wrote:-

“With the ex-course boss Julian Thick out after the re-structuring of Aintree's parent company, and the British Horseracing Authority's articulate top vet leaving too, this news just adds to the difficulties facing the home of the Grand National.

"It looks like John Smith's has made what is a surprising decision mainly for commercial reasons, though the public image of the race - in which two horses have died in both of the last two runnings - must have been in the brewer's thinking as well.

"With that in mind, it remains to be seen how easy finding a replacement turns out to be."

Whilst the first paragraph may not be a fundamental reason for the withdrawal it is a consideration. If they have had a good working relationship with Thick a new appointee could well change the dynamics of the relationship between the sponsors and the racecourse. Personal relationships in business should never be underestimated.

The departure of Tim Morris from the BHA is also a bad move for Aintree and the Grand National. Morris has been a credible defender of the race in the face of vociferous and mounting criticism of the Grand National – indeed he is probably the only credible spokesman the BHA has available to field. Yet his services are no longer required.

Now I have been the first to argue that the BHA needs to cutback in the face of diminishing income but I have to say the removal of Morris and before that Paul Scotney does, along with other decisions made this year, seriously call into question the judgement and competency of BHA chief Paul Bittar.

More pertinent in Lysaght’s analysis is the public image of the race. I know this topic has been done to death and I have no intention of rehashing the arguments again here but, like it or not, the Grand National does have a serious perception issue in the eyes of the general public.

Now it is completely and utterly irrelevant if said perception is right or wrong – it is there and, thus far, racing has done little to dispel the perception and with the departure of Morris it looks as though the BHA is giving up on the PR front.

With such a poor perception is it any wonder sponsors are going to look again at committing huge amounts of money to a race which has the potential to alienate so many members of the public? Members of the public who ultimately contribute  to the profitability of the organisation.

It is commercial suicide to be so intrinsically associated with a product which has already alienated many and could well continue to alienate people further.

There was one other factor which Lysaght, understandably, failed to mention.

That is, of course, television coverage of the race moving from the BBC to Channel Four.

Even though the viewing figured on the BBC have plummeted over the past  thirty years, the race still attracted a domestic TV audience of around nine million ….. a tasty prospect for any big name sponsor.

It is highly unlikely the viewing figures when it moves to Channel Four will be even half that number, I predict they may, if they are lucky, attract around 2m viewers. Channel Four’s biggest ever viewing figures are 11.2 million and that was for the Paralympic Opening ceremony which came hot on the heels of the main Olympics (and bear in mind the BBC picked up a record 26.3 million viewers for the Olympic closing ceremony).

Channel Four’s best ever racing audience stands at a relatively paltry 1.4 million.

Also the BBC gave massive advance advertising to the race across its television and radio networks – C4 may well also run trailers but to a far smaller audience. The BBC trailers reminded viewers the race was coming, it bought the race into the public consciousness.

So from a sponsors perspective the move to Channel Four from the BBC is a massive negative.

Aintree and John Smith’s may well reach their aim of a £1m Grand National next year – if they do I suspect it will be a one-off.

I think Aintree will struggle to find a sponsor prepared to commit the same amount of money John Smith’s were, indeed I think they will struggle to find a sponsor who wants to be associated with a potentially damaging product.

My strong suspicion is the new sponsor will come from within the industry and if I was tempted to have a bet (which I’m not) my money would be on the Betfair Grand National in 2014.