- This topic has 84 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Rob, it’s all very well the BHA asking punters for their questions, but this is hardly what I would call a two-way process.
It seems that anything the BHA don’t agree with, or consider too difficult to implement, or consider outwith their jurisdiction/remit, they will simply discard, without any further egagement on the point.
Do we get a further opportunity to question the wisdom of certain BHA positions, or is that it? We ask, they answer, and that’s the extent of the ‘collaboration’?
Do the BHA have any punters ‘inside the tent’ during this process, or are we merely outsiders that the BHA feel compelled to engage on a superficial level? Unless the BHA are prepared to view things from a punters perspective, then this exercise is surely a complete waste of time?
Where is the innovation in any of the responses given so far? I’ll tell you – there isn’t any. It’s just a series of platitudes, giving an impression of ongoing complacency and lethargy on the part of those who administer the sport.
- Total Posts 17716
Can’t argue with that, Grass.
The response I received this afternoon was wholly unsatisfactory, though I am assured that the e-mail was sent out in haste and consequently doesn’t represent the BHA’s true position on the issues discussed (a term I use in the loosest sense at this point).
In light of ITV’s desire to flood YouTube with clips of its programming, and the recent deal which will allow the same site to show official music videos in the UK, is it beyond the BHA to form some sort of agreement with RUK to use historical footage on license? Such media has little intrinsic value, but were the BHA to invest to some degree then the performances of the likes of Sea The Stars and Kauto Star would be made available to a much wider audience and RUK fees could be cut to improve subscription rates (you never know, some of the newer members may have arrived direct from YouTube).
Such a scheme could be thrashed out in (at most) a few weeks and be operational in time for Christmas – what better time to reach out to an otherwise housebound public, with the King George a perfect showpiece.
The questioner also asked about clearly stating new distances. This part is ignored in your answer. The punter needs to know the distance the race was run at and such data is of high value even after the race is run. If the distance has been pre-announced then changed late on, how is the punter to know that the corrected distance is now incorrect?
I also demand correct race distances ( after the race would be fine ). Correct going would also be nice – but we can calculate this more accurately ourselves.
Straight courses are spot-on. It’s the round distances that are required. If we get them. I’ll probably question them anyway because I won’t trust the measurer ( it’ll probably be the office YOP ) – so I’ll end up no better off.
ps I cannot wait to find out the actual distance at Ascot 17f.
Any post here where BHA have not answered the question highlights how far they have to go to understand what punters funding the game not only want but should already have without needing to ask.
Surely even at minor public schools they were constantly told to read the question and only answer the question asked. Then check both points again to make sure.
They said earlier they would not dodge the questions – they have done so again. So expose and highlight those issues here to a wider readership. Self serving organisations such as MPs and the like are only motivated by the avoiding of embarrassment and wriggling contortions once caught out.
They also said in future the response would be on a forum Q&A so that the answers could be discussed.
We are waiting.
I also demand correct race distances ( after the race would be fine ). Correct going would also be nice – but we can calculate this more accurately ourselves.
Straight courses are spot-on. It’s the round distances that are required. If we get them. I’ll probably question them anyway because I won’t trust the measurer ( it’ll probably be the office YOP ) – so I’ll end up no better off.
ps I cannot wait to find out the actual distance at Ascot 17f.
Straight courses also are sadly not spot on.
When they were measured for the first time in the last Century in the early 80’s they found the winning posts and starting positions had all gradually shifted over the years and that is why you have the distances with weird numbers of odd yards. To a punter 5f 3yards sounds accurate but what the true distance is 30 years later is anyone’s guess.When’s the BHA going to stop concentrating on quantity rather than qualtity? When the bookies stop giving handouts? What exactly was the point in the Redcar and Epsom meetings today? Why not put more big races on Bank Holidays to tempt non-racing folk to come more often? Why are we forced to endure utter crud all Summer long at evening meetings and then finally be given a good racecard at the last one?
Start making this sport more enjoyable for the punters, not less enjoyable for the bookies. You’re killing it, any idiot can see that.
- Total Posts 17716
Don’t you just love all this badinage?
Who was it who said"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount"
?
- Total Posts 17716
If you were at the races, Zarkava, with a couple of mates, a pie, a pint and a basic racecard, do you think you’d be able to gauge (excluding extremes) what quality of horse you were watching? My guess would be that upwards of 95% of occasional and frequent racegoers would struggle, so are newcomers really going to appreciate a better class of race on a bank holiday? Are they going to care?
Purists are the only ones who give the dilution of the product a second thought, to a relative novice (or even a bog standard, come as you are horseracing fan) it’s meaningless.
The BHA need to sell the experience and let people make up their own mind.
Hello all,
I am trying to take on board some of the points you have made and incorporate them into future initiatives. Please remember the caveats that I have put on this process throughout that it was the first time we have attempted this sort of thing, it is a trial run, we do not promise it will be perfect first time round.
Look, please understand that I am trying to work with you here. I have not come on here and set myself up for endless barracking for fun. And why would the BHA come on here and kick off this process just to then fob you off? There is an issue that the BHA has not in the past communicate with its consumers enough. We, and I, are genuinely trying to address that. I said from the start that this might not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Can I just remind you that the aim of this initiative was to "Ask the BHA". You ask us a question, we give you an answer. I understand the points that you have made about continuing the dialogue as regards to those answers and so on, I am in agreement with you and this needs to be addressed. As mentioned above and all the way through, this is a first attempt, I am trying my best.
One idea I have had as a result of this feedback is that obviously you do not just want to ask questions, you want to tell us all how to do our jobs
. As a result I came up with this- instead of "Ask the BHA" how about "Tell the BHA"? In light of the racing for change initiative and the forthcoming changes that will be made to racing now is the perfect time for us to implement changes in the sport (as Im sure you will understand, the industry is one that has been resistant to change in the past). So I propose this- everyone send in your suggestions for how you would change the sport. I then compile these into a paper and put them before the racing for change executives, and it will be an official paper of suggestions for the racing public on what they want to be done to racing. The executive can then act on that.
How does that sound? I know exactly what your responses will be: "whats the point of they will be ignored" etc etc, but look- we can but try.
If you are in any way positive on this idea I will go through the necessary processes and try to get this set up. If you think it is a waste of time I won’t bother and I’ll leave it at that.
Marble:
"Sack Robin"
I have taken all of the derision and opprobrium on this forum so far in good humour and with a thick skin, I’m sure that that is one thing that most people will agree on, at least.
But to say something like that, to a professional who is just doing his job to the best of his ability, who loves racing and is honestly trying his best to build bridges with people, is absolutely disgusting. I say this as an individual now and leave my BHA ties behind for this. How dare you say things like that? Who do you think you are? What do you know about the work I have done here? Absolutely nothing. As I’ve said all along everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that is absolutely atrocious behaviour, the knee jerk mindless reactionary comment of a child. Pathetic.
"Sack Robin" is not a "comment on racing and/or racing issues", it is a personal insult.
No worries, it’s forgotten.
usual anons. full of crap
.. you don’t have to be an anon to be full of crap ..
Look, please understand that I am trying to work with you here. I have not come on here and set myself up for endless barracking for fun. And why would the BHA come on here and kick off this process just to then fob you off? There is an issue that the BHA has not in the past communicate with its consumers enough. We, and I, are genuinely trying to address that. I said from the start that this might not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
.. we’ll see. I think you’ve communicated with the Bookies quite well over the past few years, Bandit racing, expanded fixtures list, erroneous data and so on. I suppose now that they have done a runner with the levy you are going to have to re-focus and re-define what a customer actually is after you getting mixed up and thinking they were going to be fair.
From my own point of view, and it’s nothing personal against you, I think the BHA is a part of the problem ‘Racing for Change’ isn’t going to solve that. If you are sincere, like you seems to be, you could end up in a state of eternal disappointment the same as the rest of us.
Statements like it will cost £2M a year to produce actual horse weights and they won’t be any use anyway, doesn’t exactly set the right tone for an honest and open two way debate does it?
Is anyone still waiting on a response to their questions?
I asked a couple of questions and the first one remains unaswered three weeks on.
- Total Posts 17716
My questions were answered on Monday, but the ‘official’ response differed in no way from the ‘unrepresentative’ response they provided seven days earlier. I had to wait three weeks for a three paragraph (official) reply, with the ‘significant research’ I was promised amounting to 20-something words from a steward’s race comments.
In essence they said that they were doing everything right, that they make the best of every available resource and that they ask appropriate questions of connections in otherwise suspicious circumstances. And, when I asked if the betting patterns of owners were looked in to when a horse improves (after three poor, handicap-qualifying runs, for instance), I was told that betting has nothing to do with handicapping.
I’m still trying to make the connection.
I think Paul Scotney had a hand in providing at least part of the response to my queries, nullifying the entire exercise.
I read the BHA’s reply to Equitracks queries privately. Apparently the BHA now use numerical finishing position rather than lengths beaten to handicap horses, if the response was anything to go by.
Say no more.
Just read the response from the BHA re Beverley.
I wouldn’t have put something in print if I wasn’t pretty sure that it was true.
I would have sworn on my mother’s life that Sally Iggulden has gone on the record at some point and said that Beverley officials have attempted to negate the effect of the draw bias through selective watering – I didn’t even think it was open to debate!
(And in the race in question – the front runner on the rail fell in a hole half a furlong from home and the winner swooped down the outside!)
Just read the response from the BHA re Beverley.
I wouldn’t have put something in print if I wasn’t pretty sure that it was true.
I would have sworn on my mother’s life that Sally Iggulden has gone on the record at some point and said that Beverley officials have attempted to negate the effect of the draw bias through selective watering – I didn’t even think it was open to debate!
(And in the race in question – the front runner on the rail fell in a hole half a furlong from home and the winner swooped down the outside!)
Sally Iggulden has gone on record many times to state that the course was making efforts to offset the draw bias at Beverley, but I don’t think she’s specifically mentioned selective watering per se (I can find no mention of it). I believe Beverley made changes to the actual track at the 5f start a couple of years ago, levelling the ground to ensure all runners got a fair start. In the good old days, the ground fell away from the rail which exacerbated the fact that the strip closest to the rail was faster, giving those drawn high an advantage in actually getting across to the rail in the first place (imagine a athletics track where the inside lanes are slightly higher than the outside).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.