ABPs

Donec’s policy is to entrust its financial observations to someone who knows all about right and wrong but nothing about money. Why? Because accountants are not always to be trusted. Here is what our moral philosopher has to say about ABPs.

Racing is facing a money crisis. All concerned (the racing industry, the betting industry, the public, and so on) are being encouraged to ante up a bit more than previously, or the sport falls over a cliff. No kidding.

The obvious villains of the piece are the knockers, the cheats, the gentlemen with short arms and deep pockets, the bookmakers who use loopholes in the law to avoid paying the going rate of levy on their offshore and/or digital betting (the levy being the contribution bookmakers pay each year towards the costs of the racing industry which provides the basis for their betting business).

Their morality would appear to be of the “something for nothing – don’t you just love it!”  variety and for some years it has been costing the racing world circa 15 million pounds per annum.

The ABP policy is a suggestion that the honourable bookmaker who signs up to the ABP agreement will pay a bit more because of the cash crisis, and will undertake to keep paying a bit more (by negotiation and agreement), and in return will enjoy every favour that racing has at its disposal (starting with sponsoring races and going on with a few other privileges with which the writer is not as yet familiar).

Conversely the knockers, the welshers, the parasites will not enjoy any of the favours that racing has at its disposal, and will lose such racing favours as they currently enjoy (such as and in particular – sponsoring races). The iron has entered racing’s soul, the sport’s righteous indignation is palpable, and the crisis is real.

The policy is designed to raise money, to honour racing’s friends among the betting fraternity, to give the parasite brigade a kick in the slats (what is a slat?) and to spotlight the disgraceful nature of that brigade’s behaviour. Granted that there is more joy in heaven at the repentance of one sinner…., it goes without saying that earthly paradise awaits any of the scoundrels who sees the light and coughs up at an adequate level and on a regular basis. He immediately becomes a regular chap and everybody wants to hug him.

It has been suggested that good-looking bookmakers who cheat the levy become very, very ugly rather more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Any questions?

STARTS

Recent evidence suggests that the management is worried about big-field starts, but not so worried as to eliminate the rolling maul which forces different horses to run different distances in the same race. This is fundamentally at odds with the “level break” which is one of the immovable pillars of healthy sporting competition.

The rolling maul in big-field starts also regularly creates such inequality on the run to the first obstacle that a large number of the field might just as well have stayed at home.

On that note Donec waits for the verdict of Cheltenham.

WHIP

A “Win at all costs ride” was the stewards’ verdict on Paddy Brennan’s ride on Cue Card in the King George at Kempton on Boxing Day.

Mr Brennan used his whip as many times as was necessary to win the race, and the horse responded to every hit. Anyone who was watching the aftermath of the race on TV (the best possible view) could see that the horse that went down the track to salute the crowds was one hundred percent OK after the race.

If the whip is innocuous, why on earth should a number be allowed to dictate that a competitive horse  is not allowed to do its best to get the best possible placing (a duty according to the rule-books in most other circumstances) because of a number arbitrarily selected by a common or garden rule-maker?

Get the picture?  So, in the aftermath of the King George, why did “authority” choose a quite unnecessary five words that amounted to a smear – why smear the jockey? Possibly because the disciplinary elite (with plans to eliminate even acceptable and proper use of the whip) were keen that Mr Brennan’s ride be widely condemned. So they banned him, they fined him, and they smeared him. Otherwise people might begin to realise that the present whip rules are inappropriate and their application is so difficult to justify that a good old smear is absolutely essential. Nice people.

After the King George, Brennan’s misdemeanour was described in the BHA Stewards’ Report as use of the whip “above the level.” There are two rules that use the term “above the level”: one deals with swinging the whip above the level of the shoulder, the other with the number of hits above the allowed threshold, which are described as “above the level.” Copnfusing, or what?

In this case it was the number of hits that were being described. So one looked for the precise number and one found nothing in the Stewards’ Report. One found nothing in eight newspapers. Eventually I found the Guardian’s report, written by Greg Wood, which quoted an un-named official source suggesting “at least 15 times” as the answer to the question.

Interesting for three reasons: first, the Stewards’ Report seems to be written in order to confuse rather than to inform. Do the disciplinarians have something to hide?

Second, my multiple viewings of the King George came up with a total of “not more than 13 hits.” Make of that what you will.

Third, Greg Wood, way back in 2011, wrote an article in the Guardian in which jockey Jim Crowley hit him several times with the modern whip and caused no pain at all. A bit more of that sort of thing, at that time, and we wouldn’t still be arguing about the matter today.

One supposes that the lack of a proper publicity campaign for the pain-free whip in 2011 is down to the fact that the obvious department to handle such a venture was determined from day one to bury the unfortunate (and pain-free) baton. A pity.

But it’s not too late.

PS Was Brennan “widely condemned”? No. The public were satisfied with his ride, and the smear died the death of a damp squib, as it deserved.

RUGBY

Six Nations. As previously suggested, most of the action will be rubbish – judging by the World Cup and recent form of all concerned.

The one exception might be England versus Scotland on the first day. England, plus Eddie Jones, arguably the best coach in the world, against a Scotland that just might be resurgent after about fifty years of rubbish. They did beat Australia in the quarter finals of the World Cup, only to be robbed by the referee.

Give that game five minutes…. and see what happens. Have a list of gardening duties at hand, in case my forebodings come true

AVALANCHE

Our weatherman writes:

I happened to turn on the Television at the moment when an enormous avalanche was hurtling down a mountain and causing the disappearance of a a fair-sized road before it continued on its way to fill a fair-sized valley.

I had time to think about the awful bad luck of anyone or anything that was in the way of this lightly-frozen tsunami and about the luck of the cameraman who had found himself with his machinery poised, ready and pointing in the right direction,  near enough to film, and far enough to survive.

Then a voice revealed that this was no freak outburst of vengeful nature but a perfectly normal human procedure : an explosive device is detonated at a well-chosen spot so as to trigger the facilis descensus Averni at a time when nobody was in the area, having been well-warned in advance, and having been well-klaxoned as zero-hour approached.. The object of the exercise (which is normal practice in the Alps) is to make imminent catastrophe do its worst while under control (as it were), rather than allow it to choose its own moment to give human and animal life an imperial shock-horror-near death/real death experience.

A short time later the road was clear, and normal service was resumed.

It made me think.  The French (or were they Swiss?) can move several million tons of lightly frozen water from a threatening position to one where it can do no harm simply by using the brain, the lie of the land and some form of grenade. I believe the setting of the trap is done from a safe distance by firing the device from a gun of sorts; it explodes when it lands.

If they can do this by good management, a klaxon, and half an hour’s work by two healthy young operatives on skis, surely we, if we give the matter five minutes thought, between now and high summer, can come up with a scheme? A scheme  for identifying the sources of potentially dangerous water and making arrangements, should the need arise, for it to be directed along a scenic route to a safe haven where it can do no harm to man or beast.

(Copy to the Dept of the Environment)

Best wishes,

 

donec