- This topic has 71 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It was the harder line of the RSPCA on this which rang the alarm bells with me: previously they’ve seemed reasonable and fair, but it’s clear that now (maybe with changes in management and strategy) they can no longer be regarded as allies..
You may have a point Pinza but "can no longer be regarded as allies" is I think taking it rather too far. I, you and others have repeatedly extolled the virtues of David Muir: a priceless ally in the’war’ against extremism, and as Steeplechasing says we antagonise and lose him, and thence by definition the RSPCA, at our peril
It would be remarkable indeed if we agreed with everything Mr Muir and the RSPCA say needs doing regarding safety and horse welfare in racing, and I largely agree with the consensus that an ‘easing’ of the National fences is not necessary and may in fact be counter-productive due to the resultant likely increase in speed; but any disagreement I may feel on this particular stance is mollified by the realisation that the RSPCA – rather surprisingly don’t you think – have never been nor are ‘anti-National’ .
Hence your rather hot-headed
volte face
of now regarding the RSPCA as ally turned foe on the back of a lone suggestion by them you don’t happen to agree with is neither needed or warranted
I dislike censorship, but the case for the BBC not giving publicity to streakers would, I think, be supported by most. Not showing pictures of people protesting against ‘animal cruelty’, is, I accept, a bit more difficult to defend.
But we live in a world where image is king. Had there been no aerial shots of the corpses of Ornais and Dooney’s Gate, and had the water-splashing chaos at the finish been handled better (or not shown), I have little doubt these recently announced changes to the course would not have been proposed.
Campaign is rather a grand word for a lone blogger to use but before this year’s National I urged the BBC to resist repeated slowmo shots of fallers – not just in the big race, but throughout the meeting. Regular tweeter and top BBC man Lewis Wiltshire got me a formal response from the BBC (Article here http://wp.me/p1o7dN-cp)
The way the BBC cover the meeting is critical to the future of the Grand National – I’m convinced of that. I can understand their desire to show off their wonderful HD super slowmo using as many dramatic moments as possible. But, for me, pictures of somersaulting horses look almost pornographic in slow motion and there must be many among the once-a-year viewers who wonder how we racing folk get our kicks.
While the BBC have a duty to report the facts and entertain, unless they heed advice to avoid overplaying the risk side of the National, they will lose one of their few remaining flagship events because the race itself will not survive.
They had 10 times the number of viewer complaints they normally get after the National this year.
Racing itself and Aintree in particular, should be heavily involved with the BBC in story-boarding the coverage well in advance. Racing does not need surprises when millions are staring in its shop window.
The good news is that I believe the BHA PR team will be taking much of the responsibility in future for the National PR – perhaps Paul Struthers can confirm this?
On a slight side note, I’ve little doubt the RSPCA are taking a firmer stand in general in racing. In an interview I did with David Muir http://wp.me/p1o7dN-rk , he said that backhand use only would be the ideal outcome of the whip review. I expect that the BHA will announce exactly that in October – if they do, that will tell us just how strong a grip the RSPCA now has on racing’s tiller.
I can’t agree.
Firstly, the decision not to give protesters/exhibitionists the oxygen of publicity (which is what they are after) was and is a national broadcasting standard, not just in Racing but in all sports across the board.
So I was imagining things when the anti-Glazer protests at Old Trafford were broadcast as part of sports coverage?
Or is it the case you are really advocating not showing protests you do not agree with?
Where is this "national broadcasting standard" you are referring to? I cannot find anything in the Offcom guidelines.
The deny the "oxygen of publicity" argument is generally the last resort response of somebody who is unable to offer a rational, cogent, argument against what is being protested.
Having said that, the cause being protested is actually a complete irrelevance. What is wrong is the perceived compromising of the BBC’s independence as part of some cosy agreement with Aintree.
The
sole
decision as to whether to show said protest should be an editorial decision by the BBC alone, it should not be a pre-determined decision made in conjunction with, in this case, Aintree.
Such an agreement strikes at the heart of the editorial independence of the BBC and I will wager the then BBC Governors would have been unaware of such an agreement.
As Steeplechase conceded later in his post
Of course racecourse marketing teams want positive spin on their courses. I have had many an irate racecourse manager giving me grief, even threatening to ban me, if I did not change what I had written, when I have given their course a less than flattering review – yet I have never backed down or compromised my editorial stance.It is almost a cliché but it needs to be remembered one persons protester is another persons fighter for a "just" cause.
Would you be so happy if a cosy agreement had been made in advance not to show pictures of something you felt strongly about?
Perhaps you think broadcasters should not have shown pictures of the rioting, so as not to give the perpetrators the "oxygen of publicity". Or is sport somehow different and more precious? If so where do you draw the line?
Finally I would say it is not right to compare streakers with protesters, streakers do fall into the exhibitionist category – although where you draw line if the streaker is also protesting is an interesting moral dilemma.
Racing itself and Aintree in particular, should be heavily involved with the BBC in story-boarding the coverage well in advance. Racing does not need surprises when millions are staring in its shop window.
Joe, Correct me if I am wrong but the BBC pay Aintree to cover the Grand National. Aintree are not paying the BBC to be their PR outlet.
If my assumption is correct – isn’t what you are suggesting a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Finally I would say it is not right to compare streakers with protesters, streakers do fall into the exhibitionist category – although where you draw line if the streaker is also protesting is an interesting moral dilemma.
I would also make an exception for cases like Erica Roe, one of my fondest memories of rugby in the 80’s was her being escorted from Twickenham’s pitch by Ken Baily with his union jack draped over her ample frontage
- Total Posts 17716
Hence your rather hot-headed
volte face
of now regarding the RSPCA as ally turned foe on the back of a lone suggestion by them you don’t happen to agree with is neither needed or warranted
I do hope you are right
Drone
: but my trust in David Muir has certainly been jolted by the suspicion that maybe – just maybe – he’s been a wise fisherman playing a nervy fish. Otherwise, why his own
volte face
? After all, he declared himself very satisfied with the safety of the race, before this year’s rumpus offered an opportunity to push Aintree just that little bit further.
Another poster has reported that David Muir is taking a firmer line on the dreaded Whip Debate. So are the RSPCA genuine allies, in favour of saving NH Racing from the chop? Or are they fair-weather friends? Once again, I hope not.
- Total Posts 17716
Paul
, of course I can understand your overriding need to defend your own patch. I take your views on journalistic standards and ethics, and you also make good points regarding the flexibility of "broadcasting standards" when it comes to protests. Personally I don’t give a damn what they show, or where, but it does effect the General Public’s attitude to major events.
And the ultimate fact is, that BBC’s Aintree coverage is not a
news
or
documentary
show, but
sport
– it’s supposed to entertain viewers, not worry the proverbial out of them with heavy visuals of civil disorder or mishaps once it gets the chance.
So
Steeplechasing
‘s remark about the pornography of the slo-mo falls is extremely pertinent.
The BBC should not be exploiting or misrepresenting the Grand National, whether ethically, politically or visually. In an ideal world we would go back to simply seeing a more focused, close-up version of what spectators at the course actually see (perhaps therefore including protesters). That won’t happen, but their glamorisation of the physical carnage is not to be condoned.
Racing itself and Aintree in particular, should be heavily involved with the BBC in story-boarding the coverage well in advance. Racing does not need surprises when millions are staring in its shop window.
Joe, Correct me if I am wrong but the BBC pay Aintree to cover the Grand National. Aintree are not paying the BBC to be their PR outlet.
If my assumption is correct – isn’t what you are suggesting a case of the tail wagging the dog?
That’s correct Paul – BBC pay Aintree. I think the drawback from the sport’s viewpoint is that the editors involved in the National are not necessarily ‘racing people’ in the way the presenters are. How much effect the input from the likes of Clare Balding or Richard Pitman would have I don’t know – I suspect not much.
I agree that it is hardly ideal to be trying to pre-script the coverage, and I don’t know just how far the BBC would go in co-operating with that; perhaps they’d reject it completely.
But the National will not withstand many more portrayals of what we saw in April. The pressure would not necessarily come direct from the public to racing, but the RSPCA would be forced into an untenable position. Were they to cry ‘enough’, the BBC and John Smiths would need to give serious thought to their commitment.
Would either be able to continue support of an event condemned by the RSPCA?
The question I have always posed is why so much emphasis is put on the safety of the National course when the Mildmay course has had it’s own share of fatalities.
It would be interesting to see side by side fatality stats for both courses.Another poster has reported that David Muir is taking a firmer line on the dreaded Whip Debate. So are the RSPCA genuine allies, in favour of saving NH Racing from the chop? Or are they fair-weather friends? Once again, I hope not.
Is he? The interview David Muir granted Steeplechasing last April, recorded on page 3 of this thread:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 86343.html
would suggest his views on the whip have more or less remained the characteristically balanced and sensible ones they always were, unless I’ve missed some sort of apostasy from the gent in the last few weeks
From my blog
David Muir, the RSPCA consultant who works closely with racing on behalf of the charity, has been in the news lately. David very kindly gave me twenty minutes of his time yesterday to record the following interview."Recent media coverage seems to have given the impression that excessive whip use has suddenly become an issue because of the Grand National and Jason Maguire’s suspension. The fact is the RSPCA and myself have been concerned about incorrect use of the whip in racing for a long time, and I have done a lot of work on the issue with a number of people.
"Although the RSPCA have always taken a pragmatic view on the whip, and indeed on racing, things are now getting out of hand. Unless something is done about excessive use of the whip, I can see it being banned completely and that is something I don’t want to see. The whip is needed for safety and discipline in races but how do you quantify encouragement? That’s the area that needs addressing.
"I’ve read Mark Johnston’s piece where he says that horses need to feel the whip as they tire towards the finish, for their own safety, to keep them running straight in a balanced fashion. To a degree Mark has a point but what you can’t do is defend the indefensible. If the application of pain is a necessary ingredient for racing, then I see racing going into an area that’s problematic.
"The whip is a work in progress. The one used now in racing bears no comparison whatever to the whip used five years ago. If I’d have hit myself hard on the back of the hand with a whip from five years ago, I’d break all four fingers. I could do it with the current whip and not even leave a mark.
"The current whip has a cylindrical core covered with foam. As it tapers down to the part which strikes the horse, it flattens out into a foam covered paddle which gives on contact with the horse and the reduction in pain, compared with the old whip, is dramatic.
"Used in the backhand style, the whip is perfectly acceptable, it’s when jockeys change to the forehand there is an implication that they want to apply as much pain as possible, and that’s where I fall out.
"We need to make sure that the correct balance is reached in whip design and in its use by jockeys. Doubling the foam-covering for example would make the whip useless for correction and discipline purposes. But used in the backhand position, I can never see a point in the future where I, or the RSPCA, would have a problem with the whip and that is the way I think the BHA will go with this.
"The only alternative I can see to that is that the whip is to be carried for safety and correction only, as in the current hands and heels races.
"The whole point of me, and the RSPCA working side by side with racing is to try to help understand both sides of the issues as we work to improve the welfare of horses. It’s alright standing outside and criticising racing but when you are working with racecourse management and the BHA, as we do, you see the problems they face.
"For example, I’m working closely at the moment on a hurdle design project with students at Southampton University, which is due to finish next month. For a year we’ve been looking at hurdle design. Along with four graduates, we’ve been examining design to see if we can improve safety in hurdling and reduce fatalities. I’m not in racing simply to criticise, I’m there to work with those involved to try to improve things".
On the question of disqualification of a horse if its jockey is found guilty of improper use of the whip, David said:
"The Jockey should be disqualified, not the horse. Disqualifying the horse affects many other people; owners, trainers, punters, the whole system of betting. Just imagine a jockey who wants to actually lose a race, he knows excessive use will get the horse disqualified".
I asked David if he was involved in the decision to ask jockeys to dismount immediately after the Grand National. He said:
"This is another issue that’s been taken completely out of context. I’ve been involved with the National now for fourteen years. When I first went there I fought like billy-o to get loads of water and I’ve got it now, about a hundred buckets and big tanks full of water with ice-bags in them.
"When the horses come in after four and a half miles, they’re very hot. Tim Morris (equine science and welfare director for the BHA) gave an instruction this year to jockeys to get off as soon they got in, get the saddles off and get water on the horses to cool them down. It wasn’t just the winner that got the treatment, I must have thrown water over twenty or thirty horses. It’s a welfare issue and a good thing for racing to do".
Asked about the image the hurried scrambling with water gave to the public, David said, "I think there was a major PA problem there. They should have explained what was going on. It’s a bit like when the screens go up on the course; everybody just assumes it’s a dead horse but that’s not always the case.
"Racing needs to take another step forward in explaining things. The whip is a classic example. Most people don’t know about the structure of a whip and how it behaves in use. We need to be more open and help people understand things much better".
We touched on the situation in Australia where the RSPCA were instrumental in getting NH racing banned in all but two states. David made the point that there’s almost no resemblance to jump racing there and in the UK, in the quality and type of horses used. He said:
"I can never see a situation where the RSPCA would support a call for the banning of National Hunt racing in Britain. Remember, what we are about is the prevention of cruelty and the definition of cruelty is ‘the gratuitous application of pain for the enjoyment of the person who’s doing it’. Now where in racing does the term ‘cruel’ fit? Tragic? Yes. Cruel? I can’t see that. The RSPCA does not try to justify the deaths of racehorses, but we will work tirelessly to reduce them. It’s a high risk sport and the RSPCA’s position in it is to help make it as risk-free as possible".
On Towcester’s decision to have only ‘hands and heels’ races from October 5th onwards David said, "It’s a brave and positive way forward and I congratulate them on their courage and tenacity in the face of these recent concerns about whip use".
Pinza, did you say ‘they’ve been chipping away at NH for twenty years’ or something along those lines?
And in those twenty years has the number of jumps meetings increased or decreased?
By the way:
Remember that ban on NH racing in Victoria that some people on here have mentioned?
– Prize money up in 2011
– More races in 2011 than in 2010
– Two courses resumed jumps racing after a one year & three year absence respectively."Prize money has been increased by over 16 percent and we are committed to providing a solid foundation for hurdle racing to prosper over the next three years and for steeplechase racing to secure its future with a successful season."
And from ten minutes on Google, the opposition in Victoria is alot more influential & shouts much louder than the opposition here.
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza, did you say ‘they’ve been chipping away at NH for twenty years’ or something along those lines?
And in those twenty years has the number of jumps meetings increased or decreased?
I was talking about the Grand National, which is the bridgehead into the sport. Once that’s gone, they will then argue that there’s no difference between that race and the others, and proceed chip-chipping from there at Cheltenham, Newbury…
The number of jumps races has increased, but that’s to do with the counter-pressures from bookmakers to provide summer NH racing, extra fixtures to replace those lost through bad weather et. al. Significantly, the horse population is down and the great majority of quality animals now emanate from Ireland and France.
Statistics such as this have no bearing on the likelihood or otherwise of the sport being banned. Foxhunting was on the up in the period leading to its being outlawed, too.
- Total Posts 17716
And from ten minutes on Google, the opposition in Victoria is alot more influential & shouts much louder than the opposition here.
Depends what you read, and where. Here’s something closer to the perilous truth of the matter than hopeful Victoria Racing PR:
http://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/201 … o-we-have/
Steeplechasing
‘s "what chance do we have?" byline is fair comment.
On the Aussie situation, here’s a more detailed perspective from insider Mick Lynch, a sports journalist and ex-pat.
Joe
And from ten minutes on Google, the opposition in Victoria is alot more influential & shouts much louder than the opposition here.
Depends what you read, and where. Here’s something closer to the perilous truth of the matter than hopeful Victoria Racing PR:
http://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/201 … o-we-have/
Steeplechasing
‘s "what chance do we have?" byline is fair comment.
Yes Pinza, I read that. I read it directly from the Herald Sun website. Like I said, ten minutes on Google. That’s what I meant by ‘the opposition in Victoria is alot more influential & shouts louder’ I meant the Aussie RSPCA & the Aussie Greens.
But here’s the thing, I also read back in 2009 that jumps racing in Victoria was going to be banned. Then on horseracingkills.com I read that they’re not going to. That website also makes it sound like Racing Victoria suspended it as opposed to an actual ‘ban’
In short Pinza, I did a bit of research, look at sources that both support jumping & those that want to see it banned.
What I didn’t do is try & twist everything round to make it fit my own blinkered view.
If you were talking about ‘chip chip chipping away’ at jumps racing in the UK, then that argument has been put down. There is more jumps racing now and, as it’s summer jumping, on more dangerous ground than ever before. That is a fact. The popularity of foxhunting is irrelevant. Why? Because hunting is still allowed, only the quarry has changed.
And then you say that you were actually talking about ‘chip chipping away’ at the Grand National. And as you said so yourself, FOR TWENTY YEARS. And in all that time, all they’ve done is filled in a couple of ditches, lowered the fences by a matter of inches & built some run off areas. It’s still the same distance & they still need to jump the same number of fences.
Still, you keep your blinkers on, keep convincing yourself that NH racing is doomed if that’s what makes you happy.
It may be the case that the changes have been slight so far, but those changes have led to more rather than less fatalities & this is taking the whole of the meeting over the fences in April into account. The horses have less respect for the smaller fences, the jockeys force a faster pace & the ground is faster as the seasons have altered & the fixture is later due the Cheltenham. Less fatalities seem to occur at the November meeting due to the softer conditions. Also horses are more likely to be flat bred, lighter & faster than those in the 1950s & 1960s.
Do not misjudge the mood of the public. After this years race the "carnage" was a talking point in all the adult education classes I teach & a number of the students asked to see it banned; these were older people who have had bets in the past & watched it on newsreel at the cinema & on TV since the mid 1950s. For a lot of people outside of racing there is an idea that it’s had it’s day now & should be consigned to history along with cock fighting & bull baiting. Of course those of us that follow racing see things in a more balanced light but I cannot stress what damage the BBC coverage did to the race & other forms of racing this year.
Even my late Father, the year before he died, a bookies son who followed racing all his life thought it was time to ban it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.