THE BUDGET.

I understand that the recent budget contained provision for a measure requiring offshore bookmakers to contribute towards racing’s finances in the same way as bookmakers based in Britain. It also contained, I am led to believe, a measure which would allow the racing industry to charge bookmakers for the right to bet on racing.

If that is the case, this may be the first ever budget to acknowledge the importance of the racing industry and the inadequacy of its financial base.

No counting of chickens, but this could be a milestone in the history of the sport.  Racing has never got closer than this to reasonable prosperity, and, whatever the outcome, the credit for this progress must belong to Paul Bittar. This is over and above the extraordinary improvement in the health of the industry which has been achieved since he has been in charge. There is a two-hundred-year-old tradition that all the stakeholders in racing hate each other and refuse to work together. Not any more – thanks to Mr Bittar. Granted this miraculous transformation, anything is possible. Anything!

 

CHELTENHAM REVIEW

On the shop floor, however, things ain’t so hot. The Cheltenham Gold Cup spells it out. It opened with two false starts and closed with the appearance of the elephant in the room: the dreaded formula “As you know, we always give the benefit of the doubt to the horse that finishes in front.”

Let us first deal with the two false starts. They simply reveal what has been obvious for years: the starting process currently employed by the BHA under NH rules is (in the case of large fields) unfair, unsafe, improper and dangerous. It is also an unacceptable way to treat horses. Watch closely on TV and you will see for yourselves. Finally, it doesn’t ensure that races start on time, which is supposed to be the point of the present procedure, because false starts actually delay the start.

One hopeful sign. In the Racing Post on the Sunday after Cheltenham, Graham Dench pointed out the shortcomings of the system and highlighted the fact that an improper starting process can affect the result of races (with implications for owners, trainers, jockeys and the betting public). A bouquet of roses to Mr Dench and to the RP.

THE ELEPHANT

Sport is regulated. There are rules. Participants who obey the rules earn the right to respect and approval. Participants who break the rules are punished according to a tariff with which they must be familiar, and which they accept.

Sadly, in recent years British racing has added a complication to this otherwise simple situation. When Mr Jamie Stier, chief of “Regulation” at the BHA, was interviewed by Nick Luck of C4 television in the summer of 2013, he declared, “We want the best horse to win the race. That’s why, in cases of interference, we always give the benefit of the doubt to the horse that finishes in front.” This was said to justify the fact that Al Kazeem was allowed to “win” the Eclipse Stakes although he had knocked a rival into the rails in the process.

Common sense tells us that Mr Stier is wrong. It tells us that if a horse knocks another horse into the rails, that horse cannot win the prize, and no regulator has the right to say otherwise.

In the recent Cheltenham Gold Cup the first past the post interfered with the second and third and only prevailed by a short head. The Stewards’ Enquiry decided that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the horse that finishes in front, and the aggressor, the troublemaker, the rule-breaker, was allowed to keep the race.

Once again the Racing Post championed common sense. I quote Colin Russell: “It’s rather like being mugged and having your wallet stolen, and when the culprit is caught he not only gets off scot free but keeps your wallet.” Exactly! More roses for the paper and for Mr Russell.

The only consolation was the fact that both first and second in the Gold Cup were Irish, so there was no suggestion of international bias. What we have is a simple fact: if British Racing persists in its misapplication of the “benefit of the doubt” formula, race results will continue to be corrupted by the interference of bureaucrats, and as a consequence the reputation of British racing, which has already suffered as a result of this anomaly, will continue to suffer. In cases of interference, the very suggestion that the benefit of the doubt should go to the perpetrator is nothing more than a sick and embarrassing joke.

How has this lunacy crept in? It is interesting to note that the dreaded formula is not enshrined in any rule. It simply appears in the BHA’s Guide to Penalties and Procedures. On page 17 we find “Guiding Principles in Relation to Interference”.  While not being  rules, these are the instructions which govern post-race inquiries on the racecourse, as conducted by the officiating stipendiary steward, who is himself the front-line representative of the dreaded “Regulator.”  It is here that the “benefit of the doubt” philosophy is spelt out.

It would be interesting to learn exactly when this particular item was inserted into the scheme of things, and by whom, and how much scrutiny it was subjected to before it was allowed to bring its baneful influence to bear on the conduct of the sport. It has to go, it really does have to go, and the sooner the better.

 

WOODEN SPOON

This goes to C4 Racing TV channel.

It is perfectly placed to make an impact on the Starting Debate. Its cameras cover the activities at the start in great detail. Its pundits understand what they are seeing. Its archive contains material that could be used to reveal the horrors of what now goes on, by comparison with what went on in the past.

But it does nothing and it says nothing

The same story applies to the “benefit of the doubt.”  Last summer lead presenter Nick Luck had BHA “Regulator” Jamie Stier over a barrel in interview. He could have done plenty, but he let Mr Stier escape unscathed, and the ludicrous mantra was hardly dented.

After the recent Cheltenham Gold Cup, Jim McGrath allowed head Stipendiary Steward Paul Barton to utter the poisonous prescription “As you know, we always give the benefit of the doubt to the horse that finishes in front.” Jim then reacted as though that rubbish was a perfectly reasonable extract from the Ten Commandments, whereas I am pretty certain that his real opinion is something entirely different.

In both the important areas which concern me, C4 has the opportunity to do something really worthwhile and to create high class entertainment in the process. The way it behaves at present one would think it is licensed by the BHA and is not allowed to say boo to a goose. Not so. Get stuck in. You are the eyes, ears and voice of the racing public, and to a certain extent of the racing industry.

We look forward to Aintree. Remember last year’s National? A field of forty or thereabouts ambling towards the tapes, relaxed, unhurried, spread across the track, side by side, plenty of room, fair play to all the runners, and, thanks to the initiative of a brilliant starter, off they went in superb fashion, with none of the nonsense which constantly mars the jumping scene because of the witless directives that trickle down from above. Let us not forget that the first casualty did not fall until the seventh fence, which is a reflection of the fact that all parties concerned were concentrating on the job in hand at the start, and not fighting a battle with the difficulties created by a dreadful starting procedure.

I would be delighted to see a repeat of last year’s start, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Stupidity and obstinacy combined can be a formidable adversary.

Best wishes