- This topic has 102 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Feel the need to correct on something further up this thread.
No commentator is or ever has been involved in compiling the roster. This is done independently by Racetech and before them by SIS and the RCA.
It is done on behalf of the Commentators User Group which is a body, which as the name suggests, comprises the primary users of racecourse commentaries i.e racecourses,bookmakers (collated via SIS), ATR and RUK.
Thye determine through annual surveys the number of days each caller receives, with the actualities of where they are sent as mentioned handled by Racetech taking into account racecourse preferences where appropriate.
To suggest that in any way a caller, all of whom are freelance, is in a position to manipulate the roster to their own ends is grossly unfair and cannot be allowed to pass uncorrected.
To suggest that in any way a caller, all of whom are freelance, is in a position to manipulate the roster to their own ends is grossly unfair and cannot be allowed to pass uncorrected.
No need to correct that suggestion, Richard, as I don’t think that was actually what anyone was suggesting in as many words, was it? I’d hate it to be thought that this was the inference in my posts above, at least (remember your old Sportsman instructions, Jezza – libel horses, but don’t libel people…
)My understanding, having discussed the science of rostering with a number of people much closer to the process than myself over the years (albeit none of them commentators, admittedly), was that yes, the roster is devised on behalf of the Commentators User Group, and that yes, the numbers of assignments per commentators is based on the surveying model in place.
However, I was also given to believe that the aforementioned messrs Goode and Bartlett were entrusted by Racetech, or whosoever else, to allocate the requisite number of stints per commentator in accordance with their allocation and the CUG’s surveys; and that they would do so impartially, fairly, and incorruptibly.
Hence, therefore, the use of “devise” to describe Goode’s actions, rather than anything else implying collation, editing or vetting.
Hence also my saying that “it would take a greater power to shift Goode”, as I’m fully aware it is no more down to him to suggest other commentators leave the roster than they him.
However, if I have been misinformed all this time, and neither of the two commentators perform this task on behalf of Racetech after all, then believe me that I’m only too happy to be disabused of this untruth!
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Neither of the two commentators you mentioned nor any others perform this task on ‘behalf’ of Racetech or any of their predecessors.
The roster is ‘devised’ independently of any of those on it which is of course how it should be.
Noted with thanks, Richard!
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Quietly efficient and seemingly very much underated Mark Slater – I would like to see him get more of the high profile gigs.
Wish granted – he’s doing the November Handicap meeting today.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Quietly efficient and seemingly very much underated Mark Slater – I would like to see him get more of the high profile gigs.
Wish granted – he’s doing the November Handicap meeting today.
gc
or half of it at least!!!
Ah yes, it’s a shared duty with Martin, isn’t it!
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Ah yes, it’s a shared duty with Martin, isn’t it!
gc
It was which surprised me as, unless they have changed the "rules", the trigger for two callers at a meeting is 125 declared runners and unless I miscounted there were 120 declared today.
Perhaps Richard or Lee can confirm if the trigger has changed?
Cheers Richard – I’m just getting old
Although the honest excuse is the number of runners on the summary page of the Sporting Life racecards has, for some reason, one less in each race than was declared – which I agree makes it 127
Very interesting. To that end, presumably there is usually a reserve commentator rostered for any meeting at a course with a stabling allowance in excess of 125, should the total number of runners reach more than 125 as it did yesterday?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Who was that guy trying his hand at analysis on Timeform radio today alongside Alan Dudman, does anybody know?
No surprise there.
To be honest if they cannot be bothered to support "lesser" meetings I don’t see why they should be allowed to "cherry pick" the big ones
No surprise there.
To be honest if they cannot be bothered to support "lesser" meetings I don’t see why they should be allowed to "cherry pick" the big ones
My feelings exactly, Paul. Now that they don’t have a dedicated Sports programme since the demise of Grandstand then lots of sports not just racing have been marginalised.
If I was the management at Chepstow I would tell them that this is their last Welsh National and Haydock has had little joy from them this year at all.
Most of their coverage is on BBC2 in any case including The King George at Ascot and the way they split the midweek racing at the big meetings between BBC1 and 2 is not done to any other sport. Makes it difficult to record. Total disgrace.
No surprise there.
To be honest if they cannot be bothered to support “lesser” meetings I don’t see why they should be allowed to “cherry pick” the big ones
They do that with all the other sports they cover (apart possibly from woofterball), so why not with racing?
To be honest if they cannot be bothered to support "lesser" meetings I don’t see why they should be allowed to "cherry pick" the big ones
Obviously agree with the above, British horseracing should tell them where to stick their horse racing coverage.
I hate the BBC for what they’ve done to racing coverage over the years, the licence fee is money under false pretences and I would like my money back forthwith. Tell them to get some frigging adverts on instead of a thousand previews of Strictly Come Dancing and the like every week!To be honest if they cannot be bothered to support "lesser" meetings I don’t see why they should be allowed to "cherry pick" the big ones
Obviously agree with the above, British horseracing should tell them where to stick their horse racing coverage.
I hate the BBC for what they’ve done to racing coverage over the years, the licence fee is money under false pretences and I would like my money back forthwith. Tell them to get some frigging adverts on instead of a thousand previews of Strictly Come Dancing and the like every week!I quite agree. I still can’t believe how they’ve just dropped it. I always thought it would be one of the staples of the BBC’s sports output. Imagine 15-20 years ago being told that there would be hardly any on BBC – almost unimaginable.
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.