SPORT 92 (1ST JUNE 2019)
Jun 1st, 2019 by admin
Ruby Walsh
I was reprimanded for not saying nice things about Ruby Walsh’s retirement in the May issue. Let me fill that gaping and possibly disgraceful vacuum twice over.
1. In the RP’s excellent “Tribute to Ruby”, his father Ted refers to Ruby’s habit of blaming himself when beaten in a close finish. “You always come in and say ‘I should have done this’ or ‘I should have done that,’ ” complained Ted.
A guinea to the first reader who identifies exactly the same “weakness” in another jockey. It features large in racing literature of yesteryear and defines the stature of the sportsmen involved in the two conversations.
2. My reference last month to lady jockeys leading the way towards sensible retirement arrangements entitles me to say that my reaction to Mr Walsh’s decision to ground himself indefinitely while sound in wind and limb was relief rather than anything else. Relief made me forget to pay my respects. That doesn’t make me a bad person, does it?
I saw a replay of the winning ride that triggered retirement. The way he attacked the final fence and then took no chances on the run-in made me think that he too was quite relieved.
Alan Merrett
The man is a hero. His letter (RP, 28th April) highlights two of the reasons why big-field NH starts are a disgrace:
1) They stress horses and riders at a time when horses and riders need to be calm and relaxed. Everybody has known that for 250 years except today’s BHA. Sad.
2) The habit of starting races when the runners are hundreds of yards behind the tapes will one day mean that the official distances of races will bear no relation to the distances run. Unnecessary problems will develop. Sad. Well spotted, Mr Merrett.
I don’t blame the starters. They are under pressure to ensure that the runners are relaxed and walking as they approach the tapes, but the presiding geniuses refuse to dispense with the Rolling Maul (the close-order walkabout which causes the kettle to boil).
Mr Merrett’s suggestion that the runners should stay in the starting area makes sense.
BHA
The hideous Maul was invented by one dumbo and is being defended by several others. Did somebody recently suggest that the BHA is not fit for purpose? Certainly my experience over the last decade persuades me to agree.
However I have confined my interest to certain very simple and fundamental aspects of the racing industry (racing justice, the whip, the interference rules, starting arrangements, stewarding). Let us see how they have fared in the last decade.
Racing justice was improved by the establishment of an Independent Judiciary, but the credit for that belongs to the final panel that signalled closure for the James Best case. The panel (carefully selected by the BHA itself), decreed that a four-year ban on trainer Best should be reduced to six months, which was the same as saying “BHA, your performance has been lamentable. Shape up!” If it takes that kind of kick to the communal posterior to galvanise the governing body, one might reasonably begin to question its suitability for the job it is paid to do.
The whip controversy remain a bone of constant contention because it continues to be mismanaged, the interference rules as they are written represent danger for equines and humans alike, big-field starting arrangements under NH rules have been improper and dangerous for at least eight years, and the threat to dispense with the Amateur element in racecourse stewarding is a thoroughly bad idea. (More on this subject in a minute). Over all, the BHA’s performance is some way below satisfactory.
If this is true, it means trouble for the Horsemens’ Group, which must prepare itself to devise and apply the necessary reforms.
However that need not be the end of the world. If the Horsemen’s Group will make a plan and share out the workload among themselves, so that no individual is crucified by undertaking this unpleasant chore, the job can be done, and needs to be done, and who else is qualified to do it? Horsemen, please bite the bullet.
The Almighty works
in mysterious ways….
Old age is catching up on me. Another birthday has just peaked with the arrival of an excellent book – Gordon Richard’s autobiography (1955), accompanied by a postcard featuring a painting by John E. Senior (1795 – 1865). The subject is PREPARING TO START FOR THE DONCASTER GOLD CUP. I had never heard of John E. Senior, but I wouldn’t mind a wall-full of his works. It was chosen by that redoubtable expert on sporting art and the sport of kings Mr Hugh Teacher – may he live for ever. (Erratum: “John E. Senior” is in fact “John F. Senior” (I am between cataract operations, you understand). I imagine the attribution refers to the brilliant John Ferneley Senior.
Sir Gordon’s mother bred and traded in pit ponies to earn a bit of extra money. I quote: “The ponies were turned out each evening on the pit banks, and had to be collected every morning. That was my job before going to school. While riding back I used to dream of becoming a famous man and giving my parents the comforts they deserved…..” My guess is that this routine meant he was riding bareback from the age of six or seven, before horse racing meant anything to him.
Now we turn to “Born Lucky” by John Francome. I quote: “That first year of riding with no saddle was the best thing that could have happened to me. It taught me to grip properly with my legs which helped me to balance myself without the need to lean on the horse’s mouth.” At this stage he too had no interest in racing.
Get the picture? Serendipity!
Doom and gloom
Let’s have another look at STEWARDING. At present (and for a long, long time) that function has been carried out by stewards paid by the BHA, assisted by unpaid amateur volunteers.
Now let us suppose that the paid stewards were as crooked as a bent stick, or let us suppose that the whole BHA was equally crooked, would the crooks get away with it?
No, because the amateurs would soon smell a rat and sniff very, very loudly. It is a system called “checks and balances” which for many thousands of years in many hundreds of situations does good work at ensuring that villainy doesn’t have things all its own way.
What is one meant to think when a governing body which is no stranger to criticism announces that it intends to do away with amateur stewards, so that all stewarding is done by paid servants of that governing body? What I think is that the plan stinks, because the amateurs are racing’s main defence against corrupt or improper stewarding.
On Champions Day 2011 the mother and father of a row erupted in the Stewards Room at Ascot because the professional stewards decided to impose an enormous fine on a jockey for a fairly trivial misdemeanour which contravened a new whip rule, and the Amateur Stewards disagreed. Amid the flames, the smoke, and the crackle of burning timber, that fine was imposed. However the thinking element on racing’s upper levels took note of the disagreement, and within a week the rule was changed and the fine was rescinded. All thanks to the Amateur stewards.
Checks and balances, pure and simple – and now racing’s top brass have it in mind to eliminate those checks and balances. Is the BHA fit for purpose? In a word, no.
MORE TOTE
Privatisation of the Tote was first suggested in 1989 by the then Conservative government. These plans were met with strong opposition from the racing industry and were abandoned by Home Secretary Michael Howard in 1995.
After the 1997 general election privatisation was made a Labour manifesto commitment in 2001. Did Racing’s leaders react? No.
To enable privatisation the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 was passed with the intention of converting the Tote from a statutory corporation to a limited company so that a sale could take place.
Not a word of complaint from racing’s leaders.
Chancellor Gordon Brown announced plans for privatisation in the 2006 Budget and the Government invited a racing consortium and Tote staff to bid for the Tote by 26 January 2007. This bid was successfully submitted but was rejected by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as it was backed by private equity.
Did Racing lodge an objection? Not a peep out of its leadership.
On 5 March 2008, the Government announced that the Tote would be sold on the open market.
Still not a peep.
On 12 October 2009, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, announced plans for the sale of the Tote, although no progress was made before the 2010 general election.
Under the new Coalition government, a bidding process ensued with 18 bidders. On 31 January 2011, the government announced that a short-list had been drawn-up for the next round.
The ghostly silence in which Racing had shrouded itself remained silent and ghastly.
In May 2011 two bidders remained in the process, Betfred and Sports Investment Partners. On 3 June 2011, it was confirmed that Betfred had been chosen by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt as the successful bidder, for a reported figure of £265m. The sale process was completed on 13 July 2011.
Jeremy Hunt? Apparently Racing’s Finest couldn’t face up to the man who has subsequently presided over the collapse of the NHS and is now vying for free board and lodging at Number 10 Downing Street.
Now the BHA is “drowning not waving” over a £17 million black hole in racing’s finances. How many times over could the Tote have filled that black hole if racing’s top brass had been fit for purpose when the Tote’s fate was in the balance? The Tote was created with one purpose only – to provide racing with an income from betting.
Doesn’t that mean anything any more? It used to mean that when the rights of the industry are under threat, its leaders are expected to fight.
I have noticed over the last two decades, that whenever the ownership of the Tote has been in question, the BHA has taken a backward step and twiddled its thumbs.
Stupidity? Possibly. Idleness? Possibly. Criminality? Possibly.
Vast sums of money are up for grabs whenever the Tote is on the table – because it has been such a valuable asset of the racing industry. For some reason the sport’s governors are unaware of that fact.
There may be several explanations for their disinterest, none of which reflect anything but discredit on their behaviour.
The future of the Tote is due to be settled next month. Let us watch this spot, say a prayer and see who gets lucky.
I have just watched the Derby: all that is beautiful was on parade and on top form. It makes me sad to think that those whose enthusiasm and dedication have created all the wonders that are to be found in British Racing have somehow failed to recognise the threats that are quietly maturing within the industry itself.
My guess is that for at least the last twenty-five years top level selection of executives has been carried out by extraordinarily weak nomination committees made up of in-house mediocrities, whose instinct is to avoid anything that looks likely to rock their boat. Result: a succession of mediocrities in the top jobs. Result: decline and fall, and there is no doubt in my mind that decline is where we are at, at the moment.
I just hope that Mrs Phelps will rise to the occasion and do the job that needs to be done. Incidentally, I believe that “chairing” can be a lonely occupation. I would like her to know that Mrs Jenny Pitman was one of the volunteers who offered to help with the Independent Judiciary. Mrs Pitman is I am sure very useful to that Judiciary, but she would be much more useful to the industry if she were persuaded to become “adviser to the Chair.” In a word, her presence in that role would mean that mistakes would find free range almost impossible. I wish her the best of luck. Which reminds me: the current Olympic Gold Medallist is Nick Skelton. Many years ago he helped with the development of the padded pain-free whip. With respect, Mrs Phelps should talk to him.
Best wishes, DONEC