- This topic has 106 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Well now I’m puzzled, Withnail. I thought we were setting off together on a splendid quest to put right the wrongs of wonky forum spelling. But now it seems you are deserting me before we’ve even got going. Have you lost faith in the cause of pedantry so quickly?
Silly boy! It amused me to point out your error, nothing more and I really can’t be bothered to enter into further discussion. Feel free to have the last say, if you must.
I have snipped the expected heavy sarcasm, affectation and pomposity in your previous post. I feel no need to reiterate my thoughts on that. As for my punctuation and spelling, I don’t think posts dashed off in an internet forum are commensurate with published journalism; I do not, therefore, spend a great deal of time sub-editing them. You may do. May I take this opportunity to congratulate you on possessing the leisure time to do so.
This is the bit that interested me:
It is perfectly possible to use the word misogyny without ever entering the thorny maze of morality. Morality is the quality of being moral; that which renders an action right or wrong, based on religious doctrine or ethics.
Quite wrong, dear boy. To arrive at the opinion that something is misogynistic requires a process of
judgement
and judgements about misogyny (and its almost unheard of counterpart misandry) must always be based on
moral
positions, even if these vary from person to person, the arrival at the judgement has to be from a process of examining ethics and ethics are dictated by morals. You may believe that if you lard your arguments with enough sarcasm nobody will notice that they make no sense. That isn’t a sensible long-term strategy.
I made no moral judgement, on you or your proposed advert; indeed that would have been absurd.
See above. Bet you can’t answer this without being sarcastic. A little sportsman’s wager, old chap?
To arrive at the opinion that something is misogynistic requires a process of judgement and judgements about misogyny (and its almost unheard of counterpart misandry) must always be based on moral positions
Piffle of the first order, old chap. It is perfectly possible to interpret an act or word as demonstrating an underlying contempt of or hatred for women, just as it is possible to identify any other behaviour without any reference to an ethical or moral code. It is a matter of opinion, certainly, judgement, undoubtedly, but ethics and morality need have nothing to do with it.
Need we go round and round in circles on this point? Agreement appears unlikely. Time to move on.
As for my punctuation and spelling, I don’t think posts dashed off in an internet forum are commensurate with published journalism
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I did not comment upon those aspects, or indeed any aspect of your written style. It has no relevance to the points you are trying to make.
I’ll post my ideas when I have more time tomorrow, but in the meantime I’ll leave you with this thought, for what little it may be worth:
I believe financing the sport with the time-honoured levy will be all but a dead duck once the bigger bookmakers join the Gib-bound bandwagon. And what then for racing and its thousands of races?
Well, here’s my ideas on how the fixture list should change if racing wants to save itself from a slow cash-strapped death. Though being the airy-fairy thoughts of my alter-ego Barmy Fotheringhay-Phipps, rather than the obssessive attention to detail evident in a newt-fancying chum, I quite expect it to be either ignored or ridiculed, and probably both.
Assuming the levy is no more and a revised bookmaker funding of the sport, in whatever guise that may be, is but a fraction of what it is now.
A two-tier fixture list:
‘Funded’ meetings with prize money bolstered by the now-diminished coffer of bookmakers ex-gratia donations and Tote net profits.
‘Non-funded’ meetings with prize money met solely by the racecourse, owners’ stakes and sponsors.
Racing six days a week with Mondays blank.
From September to April two meetings on Tuesday and Thursday, one funded, one non-funded; three meetings on Wednesday and Friday, one funded two non-funded; four meetings on Saturday three funded, one non-funded; three meetings on Sunday, two funded one non-funded.
From May to August as above with the addition of two non-funded evening meetings on Tuesday and Thursday, and one non-funded on Wednesday and Friday. In my view there is no need to put on ‘good’ funded racing in the evening as the courses attract a more casual, less bothered-by-quality audience in the evenings.
All bank holidays to be non-funded with the exception of Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. Racing to take place on Good Friday to solve the arcane ‘moveable feast of Easter’ problem.
The BHA should liaise with the Irish authorities to ensure meetings there complement ours e.g an evening meeting in Ireland on Wednesday and Friday, ensuring action from two tracks on those evenings, and generally, their races timed not to coincide with ours.
The funded meetings will, of course, include all the existing ‘premier’ meetings and pattern/graded races, pruned if necessary to amplify the quality. This has already been done with the metamorphosis of the old three-day Newmarket Ces meeting into the Champions meeting, which few surely would say hasn’t been a success.
In effect this proposed fixture list would mean a clear distinction between a much-reduced ‘first division’ of meetings much the same as they are now and a new point-to-point-like ‘second division’ staged by and for enthusiasts of the sport in it’s own right, for whom financial reward for running and winning is secondary to the enjoyment experienced in seeing one’s pride and joy perform.
Thoughts on the structure of the fixture list, much of it repeating what I’ve submitted to this forum
argumentum ad nauseam ad tedium ad infinitum
in the past
Flat Turf – Craven/Lincoln Meetings (third weekend of April) – Champions Meeting (third weekend of October)
Flat AW – Flat Turf close season only
Core NH – First weekend in October – second weekend in April
Summer jumps – mid-April – end-August, three meetings per week, one on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and Sunday. All non-funded. Sorry Summer Plate etc fans.
It is of course very easy to write the above. The logistics of actually doing it no doubt fraught with near-insurmountable problems and I wholly realise this…
…but to repeat: do you think the fixture list can be maintained as it is now?
Given the lack of responses to my question thus far I can only conclude:
A) everyone believes all is rosy in racing’s garden
B) everyone is content to bury their heads in the sand and on with the motleyAnyway make of it all what you will.
I’m the first to admit the AH/BB concourse and discourse is altogether more entertaining than this turgid pseudo-serious essay.
’tis only a message board
– An average of 4 meetings a day. A landmass and population the size of the UK can easily accommodate this. At the present 363 days racing that 1452 fixtures annually. Have blank days if you want but maintain the 4 a day average.
– Tote Win market with a 5% takeout. Given the amounts matched on BF I don’t see why an average pool of 200,000 a race isn’t feasible. As an exchange user I would be happy to revert to pool betting if the percentages were fair. 10 grand a race x 24 races a day x 363 days a year is a before costs 87 million plus for horseracing.
– Bookies – Legally cap overround at 1.5% per runner
– Exchanges – Prevent racing markets from opening until midday. Put the odds compilers back to work again.
– Housewives – Bring racing to them via the newsagent/supermarket scratch card. 2 races on a Saturday afternoon, card reveals 4 brightly coloured silks. Your silks finish 1-2-3-4 you win a big cash prize. MASSIVE potential imo.
– Fixtures – More Pattern races on summer Saturday afternoons. Generally speaking racing is not competing with football for attendance and betting revenue this time of the year.
– Consultation – Talk to your customers (punters and racegoers) in a meaningful way.
Cavelino Rampante:-
Housewives – Bring racing to them via the newsagent/supermarket scratch card. 2 races on a Saturday afternoon, card reveals 4 brightly coloured silks. Your silks finish 1-2-3-4 you win a big cash prize. MASSIVE potential imo.
Thinking outside the box (as they say). I like this idea. Appeal to your average lotto/scratchcard players (not just housewives).
Base it on one big 16+ runner big handicap each week (sorry this would mean 48hr decs to allow for printing & distribution etc).
One question:- How would you treat non runners on the day? Default to fav or void ticket (i.e. refund)?
Otherwise, as I think has been mentioned previous prior to Sir Bettingboy Vs Lord Andrew’s entertaining joust, we need to engage racegoers in the finer arts of the game. (I’m thinking tours of the weighing room, audiences with key players (jockeys/trainers etc).
Getting a pop band or marketing a ladies day is too easy (for the racecourses) and just encourages the pishheads who to be honest have no interest in the actual sport bar a casual bet (or lay if they get lucky) and are too fickle to be truly engages in our sport.
Cav – if the idea of a Saturday scratchcard with a racing link is your own then you deserve a big pat on the back.
Scratchcard with 4 numbers for a big handicap every Saturday, your numbers finish 1,2,3,4 you win.
Fantastic idea.
One question:- How would you treat non runners on the day? Default to fav or void ticket (i.e. refund)?
Aside from other issues, the number of non-runners is a question that needs to be addressed urgently. For all that 48 declarations might gain income abroad it doesn’t help much if you p*** off your core market. Quite what newcomers make of a raft of non-runners at some meetings I haven’t a clue, but it can’t help. I remember one instance on a Sunday at Perth a couple of years where bookmakers were asking if anyone knew which horses were non-runners!
Go back to overnight declarations and get rid of this ‘self certification’ nonsense.
The other matter is ‘bad-drawitis’ resulting in non-runners. If the draw bias is so significant and those drawn wide pulled out on a regular basis then reduce the field size for the affected events.
Rob
Excellent ideas from Drone and CR, well thought out and interesting, just the kind of thing that hopefully the BHA will take note of.
For the extent to which I have contributed to this thread’s drift away from the initial question, I apologise.
Let’s get on with discussing the matter in hand.
robnorth:-
Aside from other issues, the number of non-runners is a question that needs to be addressed urgently. For all that 48 declarations might gain income abroad it doesn’t help much if you p*** off your core market. Quite what newcomers make of a raft of non-runners at some meetings I haven’t a clue, but it can’t help. I remember one instance on a Sunday at Perth a couple of years where bookmakers were asking if anyone knew which horses were non-runners!
Mr & Mrs Scratchcard buyer realise that NONE of their four runners on their scratchcard actually run. Hmmm! With the Lotto your guaranteed 49 balls starting each week!!!
‘bad-drawitis’ – especially virulant in the Chester & Beverley areas. Even more contagious then Swine Flu they say…
You could have reserves to cover any non-runners.
Cut off time for them to be included?
Should they be stabled at the course, just in case?
If they are included in the list of runners past a certain time should they be treated as non-runners for normal betting purposes?
Rob
Maybe instead of colours you could have just numbers with the ruling that a non runner would result in you being allocated the highest race card number not already on your scratchcard ?
Piffle of the first order, old chap. It is perfectly possible to interpret an act or word as demonstrating an underlying contempt of or hatred for women, just as it is possible to identify any other behaviour without any reference to an ethical or moral code. It is a matter of opinion, certainly, judgement, undoubtedly, but ethics and morality need have nothing to do with it.
But you said
you
found it repellent. You didn’t dispassionately observe it was, in your view, a misogynist idea, you said
you
were repelled by it, which to any reasonably educated member of the public suggests
your
ethical views on women were transgressed. Now you claim you were merely making a disinterested comment. You are now changing your story to fit your argument. If you are going to make these
de haut en bas
declarations please try and be consistent. Failure to do so can make a man appear an oily pseud.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.