CROWD CONTROL

We at Donec have reservations about the notion that every sort of person should be encouraged to go racing, including people who aren’t particularly interested in the sport, and people whose participation is not unconnected with the term “yob culture.”

Racing is a subject made up of a multitude of facets, all of them interesting, many of them complex, most requiring aptitude, application, knowledge, respect and a certain amount of passion. It is rather sad if people who wish to treat the racecourse with those factors in mind should find themselves required to share the space with others who are not that way inclined and whose inclinations sometimes lead to antisocial behaviour.

We need the money, say the racecourses. Not that badly, you don’t. I am pretty certain that many voices have been raised protesting at the “open door” policy, and warning that true racegoers will become ex-racegoers if that policy is not changed.

The racecourses certainly need the money, and they control facilities that are available seven days a week for alternative applications that could earn money. What is necessary is to resolve that on racedays, which are not that frequent, only racing will take place – for the benefit of genuine racegoers and their friends.

Easier said than done? Certainly.  However, when one thinks of the buildings, the facilities, the parking space and the infield, one cannot help but suggest that in the neighbourhood of every racecourse in the country there are two or three entrepreneurs who may have no interest in racing but would be very interested in the chance to make those assets profitable, for the racecourse as well as for themselves.

Might I suggest that the policy of trying to get more and more people through the turnstiles on racedays may be a sign of idleness as well as being counterproductive in the long run? One sometimes gets the impression that racecourse managements look upon racedays as the only source of revenue, and presumably use the rest of the year for recreational purposes – to wind down between meetings. How about a half day seminar, attended by substantial local businessmen, invited to have a good lunch and make suggestions for increasing the profitability of the site?

AMATEUR STEWARDS

This situation gets more interesting by the minute. First we have the announcement, made by Mr Jamie Stier, that consultation is ongoing with all interested parties in the hope of achieving consensus on the subject of Amateur Stewards, and whether or not they should be replaced by professionals  in a couple of years time.

I do not know if this announcement is unpopular with racing’s grass roots. However I was surprised by the next step taken by Mr Stier. Another announcement, very soon after the first – this one claimed that the situation was almost an emergency: 77 meetings had taken place this year with no Amateur Stewards because none were available. Why not? Because the species was heading towards extinction.

Something really rather malodorous about the way the matter was handled, I suggest. If there is the crisis described in the last paragraph, why is the BHA sweet-talking about long-term consultation, consensus, and so on… as in para one above.

I was bothered by this for a fortnight and then a penny dropped. Not necessarily the right penny, but here it is for what it is worth: this is a plot to remove the Amateur element from racecourse stewarding by guile and by deception. Possibly it is a plan that has been quietly formulated over a period of time. Perhaps the shortage of Amateur Stewards has been created and/or encouraged from within the BHA itself. By whom, one wonders…

This move towards professionalism – is it a good idea? Unlikely. Remember 15th October 2011 when the Amateur Stewards (at Ascot on Champions Day) opposed the application of a rule that  would fine French jockey Soumillon £52,000 for one whip stroke that exceeded the limit which  a new code of whip-practice had introduced. The professional steward on duty insisted that the letter of the law must be respected. Well, it was – and within a week the rule was changed, the fine was refunded and the new book of whip rules was declared “flawed”. Thanks entirely to the intervention of Amateur Stewards, who provided (and continue to provide) an essential check and balance that helps keep stewarding honest and fair, and relatively sane.

Much though I dislike getting personal, it is inescapable in this instance. The 2011 Whip Rule policy document was largely the brainchild of Mr Stier (he had been the “Leader” of the committee that composed it). A man who has held important jobs in racing over many years  in Australia and Hong Kong must have many talents, but he has been unfortunate in certain aspects of his professional life here in Britain. The 2011 Whip Rules represent chapter one of a story that has been anything but inspiring.

For several years he was in charge of the “Disciplinary and Appeals Panels” department of racing justice, which ended up being described by a respectable barrister (I paraphrase) as interested only in achieving convictions at any cost (the main casualty being the proper application of the principles of justice). Hence the Quinlan report, which found much that was wrong and has done much to improve the situation.  I hope that the existence of Quinlan will encourage the reader to believe that I am not making this up as I go along.

At about the same time Mr Stier was instrumental in creating (and publicly defending) a code of “interference rules” which made the British racecourse the global centre for foul riding. Again, my opinion is not alone: a perfectly charming French trainer who had enjoyed having runners in England for some years took the trouble to write to the Racing Post warning of the damage to the reputation of British racing that was being done by these rules and their consequences.

I am reminded that during this period the stewards room came up with a number of verdicts that were not in accordance with the rules, but were in accordance with the principle that, in any race in which interference has occurred, the authorities should promote the interests of the best horse, even if it has been responsible for the interference. This I believe is the Stier philosophy. Unless I am completely mad, such a principle is nonsensical.

I would suggest therefore that, for all his virtues, Mr Stier would serve British Racing best if he were to be found useful employment as far away as possible from racecourse stewarding.

In that context the retention of the Amateur Steward is essential. These people do the job for nothing and they do it well; even Mr Stier has said so. What is more, they have no selfish or ulterior motive. If control of racecourse stewarding is put into the hands of a group of professionals, those professionals will be answerable to (and under pressure from) executives higher up the BHA ladder (possibly Mr Stier himself). Without the Amateur Stewards, who is going to keep an eye on what goes on? They do more than just a job. They represent incorruptibility. By their very presence, they protect the interests of the racing public and the racing industry as a whole.

STOP PRESS

The licensing committee has granted Mrs Jim Best a licence to train, subject to a large number of conditions and limitations as regards the participation of her husband in the running of the stable. So large is that number of conditions and limitations that it cannot help but create the impression that Mr Best is a very, very, very bad person indeed.

Perhaps this is the moment to remind the racing public and the licensing committee itself of something that became apparent when the Best case was running its course in 2016. It soon became clear that if Mr Best was guilty of anything, he was pure as the driven snow compared with the disgraceful, immoral and unethical tactics that were fished out of the sewers by the BHA “integrity officers” and used to entrap him.

Am I not right in thinking that there was just one witness whose evidence supported the BHA case, and that he (the witness) left High Holborn  wreathed in smiles, possibly because of the kindness shown to him by the BHA.  Not that the award of an Amateur Jockey’s licence was a reward for his helpful evidence. No, No…. that was simply a gesture by a benevolent governing body, designed to help a young man trying to make his way in the world and possibly confused by the controversy in which he found himself involved because he told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The word from the licensing committee could be translated as: “We treated the Best family disgracefully in 2016, and we intend to continue so doing indefinitely…” That would be fine, if it came from the BHA, because it would be true. But it doesn’t come from the BHA, it comes from the licensing committee, which (thanks to the Quinlan reforms) is meant to be independent of the BHA. Is that what Quinlan had in mind?