Self-certification.

Might it not be a good idea to run the BHA computer across the figures already collected, in a scan that will pinpoint the instances when a withdrawal (or several) will affect the betting market in favour of the layer and against the interests of the punter? Shrinking the each-way terms, for example.

In a gambling mega-market like British racing that can mean a huge bonus for the betting industry and daylight robbery for the poor old punter. Somewhere in between will be a trainer or owner smiling nonchalantly.

If research points the finger of righteous indignation (for once), the party concerned can be politely invited to the basement dungeon at High Holborn and subjected to a course of friendly persuasion.

FOBTs

Having spent much of my youth helping rich men wreck their lives and the lives of their nearest and dearest by gambling, I know beyond argument that habitual gambling is madness even for the very rich, and infinitely worse for the average wage-earner (except for the infinitesimally small number in each group who have a rare and wonderful gift). Hence the Monte Carlo law which forbids the citizens of the principality from entering the Casino on which that nation’s finances largely depend.

How come the UK is under threat from FOBTs? Mr Blair (who should be behind bars) is responsible. It was to show George W. Bush (another nightmare creature) what a player he was that he casually decided to create Las Vegas in the UK.

In which connection, let the reader beware when hearing of solemn discussions currently being conducted on the subject. Those who say “Let’s be reasonable – it may not be that bad” are probably making money out of dealing in, or promoting, this poisonous market.

If Mrs May (a vicar’s daughter) eliminates FOBTs from the UK she will have done something worthwhile.

Literature

OFF TRACK, an excellent mini-book recently issued by the Injured Jockeys’ Fund, consists of a delightful collection of items contributed by “Racing Greats” (and a few who have not yet had greatness thrust upon them). Humour is conspicuous by its presence and the text is generously adorned with cartoons. It will sell in vast numbers, for the benefit of a very, very, very worthwhile charity, and will probably become a “collector’s item.”

£9.99 and cheap at double the price. Full of good stuff!

 

Interference

I was delighted to read Richard Forrestal’s article (Racing Post, Friday, 20^th October) which drew attention to the return of demotion for rule-breaking. Two horses in two different races finished first and were relegated to second for interfering with the runner-up, an outcome which, on the British turf, had been as rare as hen’s teeth since the BHA began sponsoring mounted cage-fighting. Well done to all concerned.

Sport is purer than business and much purer than politics: it is a blank canvas on which those so inclined can create a perfect world. And that world will have rules and those rules will be impartial.

Racing diverged somewhat from that model, and in recent years has been in the habit of producing rules that reflected the partiality of the rule-writer, who had apparently decided that it was his duty to assist the best horse in every race.  In the matter of interference he decided that the winner of any collision should be awarded the laurel wreath of victory, even if he was the aggressor. They don’t do it like that in Rugby, Cricket, Soccer, Athletics, or Croquet, to name but a few.

It is nice to know that this aberration is no longer the norm, though I would not bet against its reappearance.

Another  smelly aspect of “demotion.”
The current rules keep stating that an aggressor horse shall not be demoted if he has not improved his position. What rubbish. The aggressor must be punished for aggressing. He must also be punished for the damage which he has inflicted on the other party in the bust-up – physically and in terms of the finishing order in the race concerned.  He must be punished so that his jockey will know that rough house tactics will not prevail, irrespective of the class of his conveyance.

Do we learn nothing from experience? It was the no-demotion principle that turned British racecourses into war zones.

A final point which indicates the extent of the contamination affecting the rules of racing. The difference between Dangerous Riding and Careless Riding is shrouded in mystery, and I suspect that the decision is left to the Stipendiary Stewards on an “ad hoc” basis.

Remember Al Kazeem (Eclipse Stakes, Sandown 2014). Al Kazeem knocked his nearest rival into the rails. Rival went backwards and Al K won readily. Rule book specifically designated any interference that involved “the rails” as Dangerous Riding (compulsory disqualification).  Surprise, surprise, the stewards described the crime as “Careless” – disqualification not applicable. Is it asking too much to suggest that that particular temptation be removed from the adjudicating process?

La folie des Francais

I worry about them (our French cousins). First they give female jockeys a weight allowance so generous as to be madness, as the excellent Hayley Turner has demonstrated. If the French glanced across the Channel they could see that female jockeys are flourishing in Britain without any such help. It was just a matter of time and of the quality of British lady riders. And of course it must be understood that most women will not want to be jockeys because of prior commitments of a maternal nature.

Next, one hears that the French are softening their interference rules. What kind of madness is this? For fifty years they have achieved best practice on the track by applying proper discipline without fear or favour, and they have been greatly respected for so doing.

It is as though the leadership of France Galop has recently lost someone of wisdom and principle and replaced him/her with a nincompoop (niais or nigaud), or possibly just an optimist whose head is dans les nuages.

 

General Knowledge

George Lambton on the great Fred Archer: “He was generally the first man out of the paddock, and by doing so was able to get the rails; there was no draw for places then. He was a marvel at the start, never giving trouble to the starter, but always well away. Even with a horse he was going to “wait” with he was anxious to get well off, and to be in front for the first furlong.”

There you have a jockey who intends to run the shortest legitimate distance in every race (for him a one mile race was one mile, not one mile and twenty yards) and to go the shortest way round the track. Riding a waiting race he leads for the first furlong, then drops into the position he chooses. By so doing he is using less energy compared with the rest of the field. If he had “dropped in” before the start, he would simply have been giving an advantage to those in front of him and getting no benefit from so doing.

Here endeth the first lesson. Bear in mind that I am no expert but my knowledge comes from the best authorities that have ever lived. I kid you not.

This is what happened at Cheltenham on Saturday, 28^th October 2017. It featured three races (2.00, 3.10, 3.45) with big fields:

2.00 (16 runners). It appeared to me that the racecourse had made sure there was plenty of room for the pre-start count-down (no need for very tight circling, all much more relaxed).  Well done, Cheltenham. When the final approach to the start began, the Procession was in good shape (walking and the occasional jig-jog). When the starter raised his flag the field was 60 or 70 yards from the starting gate, and the field was encouraged to spread out and “make a Line”. It responded, and made two lines, which was satisfactory, plenty of room and the whole field starting at just about the same place (an even break).

The start was perfect and yours truly was delighted….. At last!

The 3.10 (16 runners) and the 3.45 (19 runners) told a completely different story.

When the starter raised his flag, the Procession (20 lengths from first to last) turned towards him. There were still 60 or 70 yards available for “making a Line.” For whatever reason, he didn’t bother with that.  Simply dropped his flag and off they went – in a Procession! 20 lengths from front to back! What a distortion of the “Fair start for all” principle.

The same happened with the 3.45 (19 runners).

How can one start be perfect, and the next two completely wrong?

For a numbers of years I have castigated the Starting Arrangements for big-fields, always blaming higher Authority. Never the starters. I need guidance before I start ladling out blame this time. (That’s rather nicely put, don’t you think?)

Here’s a caveat: there are influential jockeys, apparently, who declare that there is nothing very wrong with the present arrangements. I have no doubt that these are the ones who use their place in the weighing room pecking order to make sure that they are in the first rank when a big field assembles.  Sad that there is no attempt by the authorities to look after the rights of the whole field, which is what starting is meant to be all about. 

Amateur Stewards

One heard of a BHA initiative to axe Amateur Stewards “in response to stakeholders’ concerns,” and then one heard that there had in fact been very few, if any, expressions of “concern” on the part of stakeholders. In fact most of the reaction had been in favour of retaining the Amateurs.

Several months later, the  BHA  produced “options” that had emerged from “widespread consultations with relevant groups, including stakeholders” – and the true word was that in fact  consultation had been conspicuous by its absence.

In my opinion it is rather sad that the BHA, supposedly a very important servant of the sport of racing, could sink to such obvious attempts to mislead and manipulate the industry that pays its wages.

itv

The jump season proper is just starting and will be featured on ITV for months and months. May I lodge a plea? When a chap is saddling a horse  it goes something like this: wither pad, non-slip spongy cloth, weight cloth, number cloth, saddle. Then girthing-up and checking girths. Then the same with the surcingle, and more checking. Very important stuff. Anything else? Breast girth? Neck strap? Blinkers? It goes on and on…..

The last thing a trainer needs is a TV goddess creeping into the saddling box, cosying up beside him brandishing a microphone and asking questions like a machine gun. I suppose these chaps don’t say what they really think because it is prudent for a hungry trainer to keep the media onside, and many of them are hungry, through no fault of their own.

So I will say it for them.

Dear goddess, please, please get lost. If you are as knowledgeable as you pretend to be, you know perfectly well that there is no place for you and your questions and your vile microphone in a saddling box.

Naturally stars of stage, screen and in this case TV are temperamental beasts, and controlling them must be a headache, but ITV really should do more to limit the damage that will one day result from their lust for the limelight.

If it is beyond ITV, would the BHA not feel like intervening?

Best wishes,

DONEC