News

 Copy of a letter on Champions Day written for December’s Kingsley Klarion 

Dear Mark and John,

As someone who resigned from the BHA board over British Champions Series, your respective views of British Champions Day at Ascot on October 15th, as expressed in last month’s Kingsley Klarion, compelled me to offer a few thoughts of my own. Essentially, whether the” finale”, or indeed British Champions Series as a whole, was a success depends against which barometer you measure either by.

It would be churlish to say anything other than Ascot, in conjunction with the sponsors Quipco, staged  their day splendidly. I agree with Mark; as a one-off experience, even to me, a regular race goer of more than thirty years standing, it was a huge hit, with a really strong “feel good factor.”

Obviously, as I was present, I can’t comment on the television coverage of any of the three mediums which covered it live, though the brouhaha over Christophe Soumillon’s ridiculous suspension and fine drew more headlines on several ensuing sports bulletins, as compared to any performance on the course.

The day drew a crowd of 26,749, which the racecourse expressed itself satisfied with. Like John, I expected more, given the almost unique, wonderful weather, extensive advertising, terrestrial television coverage and, of course, the fact that in Frankel, one of the best horses any of us is likely to see (sorry John!), was taking part. 

One of the key reasons behind the introduction of BCS was that its creation, apart from engaging and retaining racing’s current audience, would attract (in particular) a significant number of the estimated nine million males aged between 18 and 45 who currently aren’t interested in our sport. So, what happened on that score? Where’s the breakdown of Ascot’s customers? Those responsible do know, don’t they? If so, why haven’t we been told?

 As for the series overall? Leaving aside my well-documented objections re the haphazard reorganisation of much of our autumn programme, to an extent the idea of showcasing some major races worked, though inevitably not all eligible horses competed regularly.  As such, to the uninitiated, let alone a first-time race goer, a BCS race without leading BCS contenders, such as the Juddmonte International, from which Workforce, So You Think and, obviously, Rewilding, were missing, the concept was probably more confusing than enlightening.

Genuine October weather concerns meant it was prudent of those responsible to ensure that the Q E 11 took place on the best possible going, though on the day worries re the ground on the round course proved unfounded.  Surely, as a one off, race conditions could have be amended, allowing the course executive to determine which track was used at the 48-hour stage, as the round mile undoubtedly provides for a better spectacle.

So, notwithstanding a generous sponsor, sizeable promotional budget (at least alongside the lack of money generally available in racing) and a not insignificant crowd, to me the jury is very much out as to whether the concept was a success. Those determined to establish BCS, come hell or high water, will doubtless disagree as, since that was achieved, almost anyone with contrary views has been dismissed as a purist or traditionalist, unable to accept change.  

Such arrogant and ignorant opinions are now prevalent amongst some executives responsible for the running of our sport. Sadly, until THEY cotton on to what racing’s golden goose really is, British Champions Series/Day will never properly engage new customers. Gimmicks and innovation help but, to me, without education too longevity or loyalty is unlikely.

Horseracing as we know it is first and foremost about thoroughbreds. The thoroughbred, a hybrid requiring a MINIMUM of eight generations of thoroughbred parentage, as recognised by one of the sixty-seven racing jurisdictions (or stud books) around the world. Its history drives the whole business and, for most who are involved, has nothing to do with being purist, snobbish or elitist.  

Because EVERY thoroughbred has a traceable lineage, it is, to some extent, as a species predictable. This simple fact drives breeders, studs, sales complexes, owners, trainers, betting operators and punters, as well as inspiring television programmes and newspapers. Furthermore, far from having NO narrative, as we are repeatedly told, racing has a cyclical story that once learned is pretty easily remembered.

The old tale about Con, the taxi driver, who wins regularly at cards but never at the races- because he can’t shuffle the horses, rings true re this debate. Fiddle as much as you like RFC/BCS/BHA, but until you grasp that racing’s key element has four legs and a tail, plus a heritage longer than a Roman road, you are wasting your time and our money.

Jim McGrath

Recent Whip Furore

The current furore surrounding the use of the whip, following the implementation of new rules on Monday, October 10th, is a hugely regrettable postscript to the review of its use in horseracing, as published by the BHA towards the end of September.

Much of this report is interesting, well written and, in tackling aspects such as whip design and public perception, as well as examining statistics pertaining to its use over a period from 2004 thru 2011, provided an overview the like of which the industry hadn’t seen before.

What a shame therefore that the conclusions reached, presumably by the review group, and fully endorsed by the BHA board, have proved such a disaster, for the riders upon whom dramatic changes were imposed at extremely short notice, together with swingeing suspensions and fines, and, also, for the perception of racing in general by the wider public.

Why has it all gone pear shaped? To me, in most cases the old rules worked really well: in particular, they gave stewards and jockeys the scope to allow horses to adapt to the varied circumstances most races provide. Let’s be honest, in recent years only rarely has racing seen the whip used in a manner that could be described as “reckless” or “completely unacceptable.”

Notwithstanding the skills, individually and collectively, of those responsible for the report (they are detailed as an “expert Review Group”), it is surprising that no one with top-level riding experience, either from racing or another equine discipline, formed a regular part of this team.

Though reference is made to “wide consultation within racing” and with “participants in other equine sports”, in contrast to the extensive veterinary and statistical analysis, there is no significant contribution from any leading riding/racing practitioner.

 Some of the top jockeys and trainers are quoted as being supportive, though post-publication it appears the case that one or two merely gave the thumbs up in response to a generic call for change.

Given that, in conclusion, the veterinary evidence states “basic behavioural observations do not currently indicate that whip use in British Horseracing is (provided appropriate controls are enforced), inherently a welfare problem.”

Why therefore the huge change to both rules and penalties?  Amongst a raft of statistics the report includes is one concerning ALL runners in the prescribed period from January, 2004 thru April, 2011. This shows that 99.25% of runners competed with NO whip offence taking place- isn’t that a statistic to be proud of? Doesn’t it actually support what I hope most of us believe- that, day in day out, whip offences aren’t anything like the problem the current brouhaha suggests and that doubtless some of the wider public now believe?

Yes, statistics can mislead and percentages across the various types of racing (e.g. chasing, hurdling, AW) do vary somewhat. The stats also show that 6 courses in particular (with stiff/long/uphill finishes), result in a higher proportion of rule breaches compared to the other 54. Five of these are jumps tracks, leading one to query- why if five clearly stand out, is there a “one size fits all” approach to the new rules and pretty much no mitigating circumstances at all?

Every horse, every race, let alone every course, has its own nuances. The presumption is that our jockeys are trying to cope with these and any guidelines in order to WIN. As such, it’s inevitable that, periodically, rules will be breached and riders suspended. Racing needs firm, consistent and FAIR regulation.

 Many other sports have rules where in the heat of competition participants don’t follow the rules to the letter either. These, too, have their own scale of penalties, but it’s only following serious breach that those involved lose their livelihoods for ANY period of time, let alone, as British racing now demands, for days on end, often for something that has bordered on nothing!

The new prescriptive penalties, which see a five-day ban handed to a jockey as though it’s a Mars Bar, is completely disproportionate and surely flies in the face of a person’s “right to earn a living”. Likewise, the consequences for anyone offending a second or third time.  

No one in racing wants to see a “Rewilding” again. Opinion as to whether disqualification should be the result of a rider breaching whip rules in the way Frankie Dettori did on this horse seems to be divided. For what it’s worth, my view is that in serious cases of whip misuse, where wanton disregard for the rules has clearly occurred, disqualification should be mandatory.

In lesser situations, where on the balance of probability one can’t be sure as to whether a rider has won because he was mildly excessive in his use of the whip, the jockey should continue to carry the can.

As for successful punters in the former situation, they have won at least in part because the rider on that horse committed a serious breach. Such a penalty should help to eliminate a win-at-all costs attitude and ensure that owners and trainers have to pay more than lip service to the consequences of serious whip misuse.

In summary, the current situation is unacceptable, essentially an over-reaction to detailed research that could, and should, have been used in support of racing’s approach to an emotive subject and, also, to the thoroughbred and its welfare.