Racings "C" Words

Racing is blighted by the “C” word or, to be more accurate, two “C” words - committees and consensus.

Sadly, in the current climate, racing needs neither.

Visit the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) web site and hidden amongst all the information is a list of committees within the BHA – it is a big list.

I’ll swear, somewhere, in the spiders web of committees there is a committee to manage the other committees.

Of course the BHA do try and take us off the scent by calling the grander committees “working groups” but they are just the same.

The trouble with committees is they make any reasonable decision making almost impossible. They take time and, by their very nature, result in compromise and consensus.

There are many who will make the point that consensus should be the target, something for everyone they will say.

The other side of the coin is you end up with the lowest common denominator, nothing for anybody.

There is also the risk that having formed a working group they then have to, somehow, justify their existence.

This has been particularly evident with the review group set up after the 2011 Grand National.   

After months of deliberation they produce a glossy report with thirty recommendations – haven’t we been busy?

Actually no they haven’t.

The review document is a classic example of spin over substance.

“But we have come up with 30 recommendations?”

Maybe they have but most of them are actually meaningless or come under the “stating the bleeding obvious” category.

Yet another example of spin over substance.

Little else has changed in the racing world, the tiresome whip mass debate continues, the flawed Levy has reached an agreement, of sorts, hopefully for the final time before a proper commercial agreement is negotiated - did anybody else just see that pig fly past?

We may even, finally, get the 2012 fixture list next week which, guess what, will show little change from the 2011 fixture list – so racing will still continue with a bloated fixture list and the owners will still complain about poor prize money, be prepared for more yawns.

The flat season finished with a second jockeys championship for Paul Hanagan, well done to Paul and well done, also to Silvestre de Sousa who fought Hanagan all the way to the line.

With the end of the turf flat season comes the beginning of the National Hunt season proper and with it comes National Hunt weather and yesterday at Huntingdon was a typical afternoon of jumping weather, dreak, wet and cold but it did not deter the racegoers.

From my point of view the biggest problem with wet weather is the soggy note syndrome. There is nothing worse that attempting to make paddock notes and for you well prepared race card to turn into an illegible papier maché.  I have even tried laminating the racecard and using a permanent marker, all to no avail.

Then yesterday I found the answer to my problems as the judge, David Hicks, came and stood next to me carrying a clipboard with a hood, meaning you can write your notes whilst keeping them dry. Needless to say I am ordering one today.

Finally this month is now known as Movember as tens of thousands of men grow moustaches to highlight the silent killers of prostrate and testicular cancer. I am one of those acquiring an addition to my top lip, although rest assured come 1^st December it will be disappearing again because, as I feared,  my tache seems to have more grey hairs than dark.

However if you have not already sponsored anybody for this worthy cause then please consider sponsoring me at mobro.co/paulostermeyer thank you.

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.

A Moral Question

I’m going to ask a question today and it is a question I am not going to answer myself but I pose it as a talking point as the whip debate continues to dominate the British racing world.

An oft used argument in the whip debate, especially from those approaching the issue from a punting stance, is “so-and-so would not have won the race had it not been hit that one extra time”.

Or “such-and-such is a lazy horse and he needs encouragement from the whip to be competitive.”

Although subjective, both arguments probably have some voracity behind them and there seems to be a general acceptance amongst supporters of the whip that it is a useful tool and it can help improve a horses position within a race.

Indeed many of those who are opposed to the whip would also concede the whip can be a performance enhancer.

If supporters of the whips use do not agree it aids a horses performance, then they must be asked, why carry a whip at all, unless it is carried exclusively for safety purposes, as in the Hands And Heels series of apprentice races.

On that basis we accept the premise that the whip improves a horses performance and, de facto, the whips  supporters are happy for an outside agent, in this case a whip, to be used as a performance enhancer.

So let’s now take another scenario.

This time a trainer gives a horse a drug which improves a horses performance,   a drug which gives a short term boost but has no long lasting, detrimental, effect on the horse.

Is this acceptable?

If it is then why should the whip be allowed and performance enhancing drugs not?

If the use of drugs is not acceptable what is the moral difference between one type of third party intervention, a whip, and another type of third party intervention, a performance enhancing drug?

What is the difference between using a whip to aid a horse to win than using drugs to aid a horse in winning? Is there a difference?

The simple answer that administration of drugs is against the rules and using a whip is not, is not a valid answer to the question.

The question is what is the difference morally between allowing the whip as performance enhancer and drugs as a performance enhancer?

Answers on a postcard please, or using this link.

Fixture List Delay

With all the brouhaha surrounding the changes to whip rules sight has been lost of the 2012 Fixture list.

Traditionally the fixture list was published in the summer although last year it was delayed until September.

A delay was also announced for this years fixture list as a result of the declining levy and the seeming inability of the Horsemens Group and Racecourses to agree a program with the BHA.

The announcement of the 2012 fixture list was delayed until September, then mid October, which has now come and gone. So I contacted the BHA to enquire about the fixture list, to be told by a spokesman,

"We’re looking at mid-November.

"This is what the Racecourse/Horsemen requested as a timescale to complete their discussions."

So it transpires the sports regulator, the BHA, is impotent when it comes to fixture allocations and the decision as to the structure of the racing calendar lies in the hands of disparate vested interests.

This sums up, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with British racing - there is no clear leadership.

This is another PR own goal for racing. How can a sport withhold publication of its fixture list until six weeks before it comes into play?

There is also the knock-on effect.

One of the Injured Jockey Fund's biggest money raisers is their Racing Calendar, which includes the fixture list - how many sales will they lose because of the late publication of the fixture list.

Many people rely on racing diaries to plan their racing, will the publishers of the diaries bother waiting for the fixture list to be issued. Probably not and having not bothered to print the diaries this year will they decide not to bother in future years?  More loss of publicity for racing.

Diaries and calendars are a side issue, more fundamentally this delay underlines the current of structure and "organisation" of racing in this country is not fit for purpose.

We have a regulatory authority whose authority is being continually undermined by the factional self interests of those who take part in the sport. be it from the PJA, Horseman's Group or the RCA.

Indeed with all the factional in fighting it is amazing the sport manages to carry on in this country . . . . no that's given me an idea for a film Carry On Racing.

The trouble is the reality is so far fetched nobody would believe it.  

Turning A Drama Into A Crisis

Once again the BHA continues to demonstrate its unequalled expertise.

Unfortunately the area of expertise in which it currently excels involves pressing the self-destruct button.

Although the last few days have also helped explain why there was an exhibition of JCB equipment at British Champions Day last Saturday – they have been purchased by the BHA to enable them to dig even deeper holes.

The BHA (and others) have managed to turn the new whip rules into arguably the biggest PR disaster the sport has seen, even managing to overshadow the build up to what was racings best ever day last Saturday.

Now let me say I was one of those to welcome the new whip rules and, fundamentally, I still support them. The rules did need clarifying and there was little doubt the ineffectual punishments were encouraging riders to flagrantly ignore the rules, especially in big races.

However, as is often the case, once implemented the snags become apparent.

Two aspects soon became apparent. Firstly it is very difficult, in the heat of the race, for riders to know when they cross the furlong marker. Secondly the punishments for a minor breach can be considered disproportionately draconian.

Matters came to a head when Richard Hughes received his second ban in a matter of days after which he handed in his licence in a spectacular fit of pique.

One of his complaints was he had not been consulted by the BHA regarding the rules.

That is a rather disingenuous comment. The BHA state the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) were fully involved in the review. Indeed the PJA issued a ringing endorsement of the changes.

It seems some jockeys believe the BHA should have consulted individually with riders. That is a ridiculous position to take.

As in the wider world it is standard practice to speak to representative bodies. Employers, unless it is a very small company, will negotiate with either a recognised union or a staff association, who have delegated or contractual responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the staff.

It is no different in this case. The BHA included, in good faith, the PJA in the review. It is abundantly clear the PJA either failed to or did not have the wherewithal to relay full details of the changes to its members.

There is an alternative view that the senior flat jockeys viewed the whip as being an issue for National Hunt racing only and arrogantly assumed they would be immune.

Whatever the reasons the PJA has plenty of culpability in causing the current problems.

So up until the middle of last week the BHA had done reasonably well in this saga although, with the benefit of hindsight, the introduction of the changes could have been better timed.

However since last Thursday the BHA seem to have lost the plot and have managed to make matters worse at every opportunity.

First of all there were a series of contradictory statements from BHA board members, which gave the clear impression the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.

Friday then saw the threat of a jockeys strike on the following Monday, although the jockeys were quick to point out it was not a strike but they were merely making themselves unavailable to ride.

It then took the BHA all day to produce a statement saying they were inviting the jockeys to a board meeting, already scheduled for the following Monday. 

Does that imply had the meeting been scheduled for the following week, they would have waited.

With the way the situation was developing would it not have been prudent to have discussions with the jockeys that evening. With modern teleconferencing it would not be rocket science to organise. No the jockeys representations were tagged onto the end of a board meeting as if it was some form of any other business.

The first indication the BHA were not really taking the matter that seriously.

Saturday was British Champions Day and matters came to a head with Christophe Soumillon picking up a five day ban and losing around £50k in prize money for exceeding the new limits by one stroke.

That single ride encompassed the two major flaws in the new regulations.

If matters were not bad enough they were about to get worse for the beleaguered BHA as the Chairman Paul Roy appeared on RUK.

Had it been a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight as Roy was no match for the peerless Nick Luck.

Frankly Roy’s performance was arrogant, crass and typified the arrogance of those who are supposed to run British racing.

Even those who generally support the new regulations must have despaired at this perfect example of car crash television.

Monday came and the jockeys delegation arrived at the BHA, although I was surprised to see Newmarket trainer  John Gosden has now become a jockey, he seems rather tall for such a role. On the other hand it was probably no great surprise to see him sticking his oar in as he and his with, Rachel Hood, seem to have become racings version of “rent a quote”.

The riders spent an hour and a half making their case and afterwards both sides made the right noises.

The BHA said they would make a statement by 17:00.

Most observers thought it would be a simple decision for the BHA to make, retain the count, scrap the final furlong rule and reduce the punishment for minor infringements. No more than an hours discussion at most.

It was gone 18:00 when the BHA statement appeared, saying the matter will be referred back to the original working party and they will report back by Friday at the latest.

Absolutely unbelievable but typical of a moribund organisation run by committees.

The new rules are fundamentally OK but just need some tinkering.

Racing is facing a crisis, is in the middle of a massive PR disaster, yet the BHA shows no sense of urgency – although, maybe, reporting back in five days is their definition of urgent.

The whip review group are all full time BHA employees. The BHA knew on Friday they were meeting the jockeys on Monday and if they had any modicum of intelligence they would know what the jockeys concerns were.

Why was the whip working party not convened on Sunday, in advance of Mondays meeting? They could then have presented the jockeys with a compromise solution.

Now the BHA board has come across as incompetent and impotent.

When I worked for a major bank we occasionally had problems which could have resulted in bad publicity which would have been damaging to the reputation of the bank. What we certainly did not do was refer the matter to a committee to discuss over the following few days.

 We did all we could to a) resolve the matter as quickly as possible and b) mitigate the damage at all costs. No manager who wanted to keep their job would even consider going home until the matter was resolved, although in most cases professional pride alone was enough that people did everything possible to resolve the matter as soon as possible.            

The BHA board have actually contrived to turn themselves into the laughing stock of sporting regulation – not bad considering they started from a position where they had the advantage.

Whilst all this has been going on what has happened to the 2012 fixture list, not forgetting the upcoming corruption hearings?

 

I would accuse the BHA of shooting itself in the foot if it wasn’t for the fact they shot them off some time ago.

A Champion Days Racing

Ignoring the little matter of Christophe Soumillon’s whip ban, more of that anon, there can be little doubt that the first British Champions Day at Ascot can justifiably claim to have lived up to its billing of “The Greatest Show On Turf”

Of course the organisers had a little outside help in that the weather God’s were incredibly kind and there was the presence of arguably the greatest horse of all time, Frankel.

However even the most determined Newmarketphile, even the most cynical sceptic must accept that yesterday went really well and once again Ascot proved itself the perfect venue of a major race meeting.

Rod Street and his team must be justifiably proud of the way the day turned out, although they must also be cursing the BHA in terms of the timing of the introduction of the new whip rules.

Frankel crossing the line

The balance of the days racing was good, although it may be worth considering a 45 minute gap between the two feature races as it seemed we were thrown into the Champion Stakes all too soon after Frankel’s impressive victory in the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes.

My biggest concern as the day approached was the on course presentation, my fear were unfounded. Back in August I was very critical of Ascot’s use of Matt Chapman’s on Shergar Cup day and I was equally worried when I heard he was to front the on-course presentation for Champions Day.

Those of you who read my blog last week will recall my reservations, although they were tempered with the comment that if anybody could pull it off then Matt could and pull it off he did.

I am happy to admit I was wrong and I believe Matt managed to get it right on the button. OK there were a couple of occasions when I feared his natural exuberance may have gotten the better of him but no he was good.  Robert Cowell was also a good choice as the straight man to Matt.

My only question about the presentation team was the “value” added by Amanda Davies and I still cannot help but feel she was included as the “token totty”.

I must admit I also had slight concerns about the use of Mike Vince for the on-course commentary, not least because Mike gets very little live racecourse commentary options.

Speaking to Mike beforehand, and I’m sure he will not mind me saying this, he was understandably nervous, especially by the final 29 runner contest. Mike was not helped by the fact, with coverage by BBC TV and radio as well as the Racetech commentator, none of the “official” commentary boxes were available and he had to make do with a makeshift position short of the finishing line.

Because of his makeshift position he did not have full use of the multiple camera shots the other commentators had.

In the circumstances Mike did very well indeed, his calls for the Championship races were absolutely fine and he was able to link in with the presentation team.

He also made a very good job of the final contest, considering the pictures and angles he had to work from and he should be rightly pleased with his afternoons work.

The only real gripe I would have about the presentation is it seemed to take precedence over the judge announcing the details of the result. On more than one occasion we had to wait for the winning distances and race times until after a winner had been “called back in”. It may sound insignificant but those details are important and need to be disseminated as quickly as possible, but that is a minor gripe in the scheme of things.

Ascot, once again, proved more than capable of hosting a major international meeting and it is certainly a more “user friendly” venue than Newmarket.

Much as I love Ascot I do think consideration should be given to alternating the meeting between the north and south, if only to give racegoers based in the north the opportunity to watch such high class racing live. Although, selfishly, I am more than happy if it does permanently reside at Ascot.

One thing that struck me yesterday was how popular the parade ring was. There may have been just over 26,749 at Ascot yesterday but the numbers around the parade ring were akin to those seen at the Royal Ascot where the total numbers are far higher.

Of course for all the positives and plaudits of the day, as well as the high class racing, the day was overshadowed by the ban and withholding of fees for Christophe Soumillion following his victory on Cirrus Des Aigles in the Champion Stakes.

Much has been written about the new whip rules in the last week and it is clear some compromise needs to be reached. So to save the egos getting in the way here is the solution.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new rules so a “count” should remain in place, whether the current limit is correct is a moot point, we have not had any three mile slogs in the mud since their introduction. Retain the “count” but remove the final furlong restriction as it is abundantly clear it is difficult for the riders to judge when they have crossed the furlong marker.

The penalties need to be effective but it is clear the new penalties are too draconian for minor infringements. I would therefore retain the ban guidelines as they are now but would only introduce the withholding of fees and prize money for serious or repeated breaches. By serious I mean where the number of hits exceeds the limit by 50% or more (rounded up) or where a rider has a third breach in a rolling 12 month period.

Finally, Paul Roy should do the decent thing and resign. He has lost what little remaining credibility he may have had and, frankly his performance on RUK yesterday afternoon was an embarrassment.      

My coverage of British Champions Day

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.