The Bigger Picture

My reaction to Joe Saumarez Smith’s appointment as Interim Chairman of the BHA was fairly lukewarm. The fact that he was a long-time BHA insider counted against him in my opinion.   Subsequently I have done my research, and find him very impressive. He must have a brain the size of a bus, and he has used it to do wonderful things.

Up to now my contribution to Racing’s Resurrection has been to suggest that the BHA should ask Barry Hearn if he would like to wave his magic wand (see snooker passim) in the direction of ”The Turf”. This was an idea first voiced by Sir Antony McCoy, and it has merit.

However Mr Saumarez Smith deserves to be taken seriously. He knows every nook and cranny of British Racing’s unchallenged position as the poor relation (the very poor relation) of the world’s top racing industries. He also knows every last detail of “gambling” in general, and has shown no lack of nerve when paddling in those treacherous waters.

If Saumarez Smith is as good as I am beginning to suspect, and if he wants to have a go at upgrading British Racing’s extremely gloomy circumstances, I would encourage him to have a go.

Here is my thinking:

1. The other day, on line to my friendly bookmaker, having had a bet and while waiting to watch the race on a screen which featured messages warning me against addiction to gambling, my eye was caught by the following:

“While you are waiting we’ve found some bets that may be of interest to you.” You see? They won’t leave one alone.  They may appear to be jovial sportsmen, but when it comes to money and survival bookmakers are the sworn enemy of the great industry which they exploit.

2. Here is a question to which I do not know the answer. The World’s Rich Racing Industries have one thing in common (correct me if I am wrong): they have convinced their respective governments that racing can produce huge sums of money for the nation’s coffers,  provided that the nation concerned will sanction the legislation which will allow its racing industry to maximise its wealth.

Is that a fact or am I a complete idiot? If it is a fact, why is Britain not following suit? Any presentation by Racing to Government must feature a very large sum indeed in order to cause governmental jaws to drop. But if such a sum is realistic, that sum should be proposed, justified, acquired and stoutly defended. Think France, USA, Dubai, Hong Kong, Japan. Then think NHS…. and so on. You know it makes sense. If the rest of the world can climb this mountain, why shouldn’t Great Britain?

3. (Now I am changing the subject) I hope racing is supporting the element in society which quite rightly wants to reduce the amount of gambling available to the man in the street.  Might not that be achieved by getting rid of betting shops full of machines that cannot be beaten?

Machines that cannot be beaten? They should be ashamed of themselves….

Paul Hanagan

As I understand it, Mr Hanagan is 41 years old and was champion jockey on the Flat in the UK in 2010 and 2011. Recently he has had injury problems which have curtailed his riding this season. Additionally his trainer of choice has made it clear that he wishes to make use of younger jockeys as and when he chooses. One way or another, Hanagan has plenty on his mind.

This is the background to June 16^th, Royal Ascot, 2.30. Mr Hanagan rides The Ridler for trainer Richard Fahey (his trainer of choice). In the last furlong The Ridler challenges for the lead and starts to hang badly to the left which is a crowded area. Mr Hanagan has his whip in his Right hand, which is guaranteed to encourage the Left-hand tendency. Basic horsemanship requires him to put his whip into his Left hand and use it to return his horse to a straight course towards the finish. He doesn’t do this and The Ridler knocks his nearest (left side) neighbour sideways. Its discomfiture reveals the next horse to the left and The Ridler knocks it sideways as well, encouraged by Flanagan with his whip still in his Right hand. Having disposed of any competition, The Ridler proceeds in the same left-handed direction, which happens to be unoccupied (not surprising under the circumstances) and wins quite easily.

Quite a lot of Shock and Horror ensues, and a rumble of approval greets the klaxon indicating a Stewards Enquiry. In due course there is an announcement (I paraphrase):“As the first past the winning post did not improve its position in relation to the horses with which it interfered,  there is no reason to demote the first past the post. The Ridler keeps the race.” Something like that.

Bear in mind that the whole world was at Ascot this year. So every tongue on the planet combined in an explosion of incredulity, disgust and disagreement. No wonder.

When “Security” had calmed the waves of indignation, another  steward explained. (I paraphrase): “One of our fundamental rules is that if a horse bumps into another horse, but doesn’t improve its position…. I’ll start again…If A is ahead of B and bumps B and stays ahead of B, well, the bump hasn’t made any difference to their positions, so A isn’t punished. The Ridler did it twice, but the principle still applies, so he keeps the race.” I am sure he smiled politely before running away, but nobody else did, apart from Mr Hanagan, I suppose.

Enough is enough. Mr Flanagan must come to terms with the fact that at 41 he is not the jockey he was a dozen years ago. His failure to straighten his horse  when it was necessary and mandatory to do so was horrible to behold. Clearly Mr Fahey is still his friend (he gave him the ride on The Ridler, after all), but Hanagan is no longer his first choice jockey.     That’s life. Mr Flanagan. Forty-one is old for a jockey, but for most of the racing community forty-one is a moment to consider your options. The world is still your oyster.

The villains of the piece are the Interference Rules. The BHA has been told a million times that they are a disgrace. What they rely on is landfill rubbish reflecting the wish-lists of Raceday Regulators past and present who wouldn’t begin to know right from wrong and whose motivation has often been to make rules that suit the convenience of the stewards. In this case they have invoked one of their home-made edicts which allows a horse ridden by a moron (a temporary condition, we hope and pray) to buffet another horse and ruin its chance in a race. Thereafter it is entirely legal to apply the same highly dangerous treatment to another horse in the same way. So long as it stays in front of its victims the stewards will defend its right to the prize.

It is impossible to decide who is stupider – those who wrote that rule or the stewards who apply it without question.  But both are a disgrace to British Racing, and so said all who were at Ascot on the day in question.

CEO Mrs Harrington should ask the BHA’s Independent Judiciary to revise the Interference rules. It is made up of eminent ex-judges and lawyers and ex-racing professionals, all with years of experience, all of whom have chosen to devote much of their time to keeping British Racing on the straight and narrow.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the best qualified unit in the world for the job that needs to be done. I repeat that the existing Interference rules are very few and largely inappropriate. The Independent Judiciary would digest them in half a day and re-write them in the other half. Then I imagine that they would check it out for a further week to remind all concerned  that great minds do nothing in a hurry.

The Padded Whip

“Use of the whip is a very difficult problem” for racing to solve, according to Barry Johnson, the chairman of the Horse Welfare Board, the independent body responsible for shaping British Racing’s welfare strategy.

As long as Mr Johnson keeps referring to “the whip”, that is not surprising. As soon as he starts calling it the “padded whip” the problem will disappear. He seems to be unaware of the twenty years of research and experiment that went into the production of a whip that does not hurt. He seems to know nothing of the “Jim Crowley whips Greg Wood” experiment.

In October 2011 senior jockey Crowley whipped Guardian journalist Wood, as follows:

“It’s your job to educate people,” Jim Crowley said to me (Greg Wood speaking) at Lingfield Park, shortly before hitting me with a jockey’s whip. “The message needs to be got across. Whips don’t hurt horses.”

He hit me three times in quick succession on the palm of the hand, the third time “as hard as I’d ever hit a horse.” Thanks to the design of his lightweight, foam-cushioned whip, I scarcely felt a thing.

The padded whip is mandatory in all the world’s top racing authorities. It is constantly being checked worldwide to ensure that its harmlessness is not being compromised. It is also normal practice in England for horses that have been hard ridden to be inspected by vets to see if they have been “marked” anywhere on their bodies by whip use, and the results continue to validate the claim that the padded whip is pain free.

Jim Crowley rode more than 300 winners over the jumps before returning to Flat racing. In 2016 he was Flat Racing champion Jockey, before spending five years as first jockey to the late Sheikh Hamdan Al Maktoum. So he really does knows what he is talking about.

What more do you need, Barry Johnson, before you understand what you are playing with? The whip was an implement that punished. It is now padded, painless and a Cushion, and that has been the truth since about 2006.

Let me repeat Crowley’s words. “The message needs to be got across. The padded whip doesn’t hurt horses.”

Best wishes,

DONEC