Surely, as befits ex-officers, gentlemen, gentleladies, lords and ladies of the realm and other assorted all round good eggs, it’s time for the BHA to afford a more appropriate level of respectfulness towards jockeys and trainers in their disciplinary reports? They seem still to refer to owners by titles (Mr/Mrs/Lord etc), to trainers by first and last names and to jockeys by last name only.
They seem to be stuck in the same elitist, patronising (in my view) timewarp as the chaps at Ascot who will let you know when you can take off your jacket. Maybe their long term aim is to restore racing to its glory days when Earl Whatshisface and Lord Thingmyjig raced their 2 fine steeds on the downs for a silk purse of 5 guineas?
I misguidedly thought that as stewards seem to refer to jockeys these days as Mr/Miss etc in their on-course enquiries that the BHA might have caught up and cottoned on to the fact that we are now in the 21st century. To me this smacks of much that needs changing if racing is to flourish.
Is there even one good reason why owners, trainers and jockeys should be treated differently? Particularly when the disciplinary panels are doubtless made up of those who regularly complain about the lack of respect in this modern generation that seems to have emerged since the Second World War…….
Insulting, patronising and snobbish beyond belief.
Interesting and vehement dogma. I’ve really no idea why anyone should, need, ought, bother with such strange invective
FWIW my thoughts are that owners are daft and impressionable; trainers craven and oleophilic; jockeys necessary and tedious
If you are right Drone, perhaps the BHA should address the irreplaceable jockeys in a very polite manner, use preremptory surnames for the bowing and scraping trainers, and completely ignore the trivial owners. Of course, there might be one or two exceptions in each category.