WHIP

In my July contribution I explained that British Racing has nothing to fear from the anti-whip faction because the BHA knows perfectly well that the padded whip now in use worldwide is pain-free. A proper job was done before the padded whip was given the go-ahead by the British racing authorities in 2006.

If the BHA does not use that logic to make the case for retaining the padded whip, then it will come as no surprise if the opponents of the padded whip win the argument.

Bear in mind that the anti-whip faction is not going to stop making “trouble” until it has removed the whip in its entirety, and the only thing that will stop them making a nuisance of themselves and damaging racing is a robust defence of the extremely strong position which British racing enjoys as regards the whip.

But if you lie down and invite your opponents to walk all over you, that is exactly what they will do.

HEAVYWEIGHTS

I read in my Racing Post that certain important people in the racing world are looking into the possibility of conferring in order to see if British racing can be helped out of the trials and tribulations which seem to have become its natural environment during the last sixty years. This pleases me greatly.

I notice the name of Mr Peter Savill being mentioned in connection with the above. Mr Savill ran racing for eight years, he did much that was good, and he knows more about the the ins and outs of British Racing and about the BHA than anyone. I am pretty certain that he is unshockable.

Twenty years ago he   produced a plan to harvest a copyright fee from the bookmakers for all the paperwork which the BHA provided at no cost, and which the betting industry required (and still requires) every day of the week to facilitate its business operation. British courts at two levels approved. The last hurdle was the European Court of Justice where a panel of EU judges, in response to an appeal lodged by William Hill, said “Non!” Legal opinion in many lands said the decision was perverse. That was in 2003. Today the European Court can go boil its head. Might there be any mileage, I ask myself, in a return to that endeavour?

INTERFERENCE

The BHA’s interference rules are a complete mess, as everybody is aware. However it just so happens that the BHA’s Independent Judiciary (designed by Christopher Quinlan QC and commissioned by Nick Rust, ex-CEO of the BHA) is the finest source of sound judgement in the world, as regards this aspect of Racing’s rule book.

Might not the BHA’s current CEO (Mrs Harrington) be tempted to consult His Honour Brian Barker (head of the Independent Judiciary) for advice in this matter. I imagine that their offices at High Holborn are virtually adjacent (or did I just make that up?)

BIG FIELD STARTING (under NH rules).

Not much NH racing going on, but enough to confirm that no change in the starting process is in hand or on the drawing board. Clearly Dunshea (Raceday Regulator) is determined to continue with a procedure that is guaranteed to upset the horses and contributes to the dangers and unfairness of starts when big fields are involved. Consequently False Starts are frequent occurrences.

Here is an extract from Donec’s SPORT 128 (March 30^th 2022):

CHELTENHAM

Tuesday: 3 False Starts

Wednesday: 3 False Starts

Thursday: The starters’ adopted emergency tactics for the three big-field-races. The first stage was to send the Rolling Maul (the close-packed and as yet unstressed runners) back down the track away from the start until it was almost out of sight, and then called it back towards the tapes. About 100+ yards behind the start line the starter sent the field on its way, before it had overheated, and without any attempt at “a level break.” I don’t blame the starters. When one is getting mixed messages and no help from above one has to make the best of a bad job.

Friday: 2 False Starts. 8 False Starts for the week is 8 false starts too many.

The BHA has already started blaming the jockeys. I would encourage them to resist this injustice as if it were a very poisonous snake (which it is). The blame belongs to the flawed arrangements (the Rolling Maul), to which the Regulator seems to be addicted. Until the process is changed the trouble will continue.

Before I forget, at least one horse was kicked at the start at Cheltenham. That is part and parcel of the risk when you combine many horses with limited space and high tension.

If the Rolling Maul were discontinued tomorrow it is quite possible that the problem would solve itself, because the logic is so obvious. However I am not sure that logic features in the mental processes of the BHA. Certainly employing an inexperienced foreigner to organise and oversee a job about which he know nothing is asking for trouble.

Here are a few thoughts on the subject of big-field-starting:

1. No starting “process” should begin until the whole field is down at the starting area. This caveat is important.

2.  The field should take a big turn (circle) at the walk on the track at a distance from the starting gate designated in advance by the starting team. There the preliminaries (tack, re-shoeing, veterinary interventions, etc) are dealt with. The big circle should be anticlockwise, in single file, at the walk.

Every trainer in Britain says” Take a turn!” several times a morning when he wants his string to give him time to think.  When they hear that phrase the horses understand that nothing serious is going to happen for several minutes – and they relax.

3 . When the starter decides to start the race he will give the signal. The runners will turn towards the tapes, at the walk. There will be enough time and space for jockeys to choose a position and make an adequately “fair” line, but not enough time for the field to overheat and explode. Understood? If yes, please contact the Regulator and explain. He doesn’t pay any attention to me.

(End of Extract).

Best wishes,

Donec.