Televised Stewards Enquiry- your views requested

[BHA]

Dear Racing Forum

Racing for Change is interested in hearing your views regarding the televising of Stewards’ Enquiries.

As you may have seen, the first live broadcast of a Stewards’ Enquiry took place at Goodwood on 31st July when Channel 4 and Racing UK showed the discussion relating to the riding of Midday (Tom Queally) and Stacelita (Christophe Soumillion) in the Nassau Stakes.

We now need to discover whether there is sufficient interest from racing fans to make these broadcasts a regular feature.

As such, we would like to hear your views!

Below please find a short survey regarding the televised enquiry. If you have an opinion on the broadcast, good or bad, please complete this form and email it to info@racingenterpriseslimited.com, alongside any other thoughts you may have.

You can also answer the ‘poll’ question attached to this post if you like!

Many thanks

Racing for Change

Question 1
Please give us an indication of how interesting you found the Stewards Enquiry broadcast? (delete as appropriate)
Very interesting
Fairly interesting
Uninteresting
Very uninteresting

Question 2
Can you please tell us, in a few words, why you felt it was of this level of interest?
…………………………………………………

Question 3
The televising of the Stewards’ Enquiry was done on a trial basis. We now need to discover if enquiries are sufficiently interesting to be shown regularly on TV. Do you think they should be shown? (delete as appropriate)
Yes
No

Question 4
Please provide us with any further feedback you might wish to give regarding this trial
…………………………………………………

[wallace-no7]

Question 1

Very interesting

Question 2

Just was very interesting to see the Jockeys explaining the race properly to officials.

Question 3

Yes they should all be shown….it would certainly be interesting to hear some of those very tight finishes where a stewards has been caled

[Glenn]

Speaking personally, I’d be more interested in watching the stewards grilling connections on their ‘drifting disappontments’ than deliberating over some interfernce when the first past the post is 1.01 on the exchanges.

Televised enquiries might work abroad, where the result is very often in question. In this country, where there is rarely any doubt how they will turn out, it’s even money each of two whether I’d prefer to watch them or ‘Carlisle Bell memories’.

If there is time to fill in, then surely paddock shots/horse going down is a better option.

[jose1993]

Question 1
Please give us an indication of how interesting you found the Stewards Enquiry broadcast? (delete as appropriate)

Very uninteresting

Question 2
Can you please tell us, in a few words, why you felt it was of this level of interest?

Because there was no hope of Midday ever being demoted. It’s as simple as that.

Question 3
The televising of the Stewards’ Enquiry was done on a trial basis. We now need to discover if enquiries are sufficiently interesting to be shown regularly on TV. Do you think they should be shown? (delete as appropriate)

There’s not much point, is there? Every horse who wins by a certain margin and more is completely safe. If the margin is a head or less it could be said there’s around a 25% chance of the result changing.

Question 4
Please provide us with any further feedback you might wish to give regarding this trial
…………………………………………………

Just keep it to where the winner is affected if it is going to be used.

[eddie case]

Thought it was boring and pretty pointless if you’re not going to hear the stewards, you’ve got to wonder why they don’t want to be heard.
No reason to believe Tom Queally is any different to other jockeys but most of what he said had little to do with the incident.
Don’t even think jockeys should be involved in enquiries that affect the result as they are going to be slightly biased and everyone can see what happened.
I’m more interested in watching horses racing than listen to people talking particularly on a busy Saturday.

[conundrum]

Sadly, this thread is just an example of how, despite their worthy efforts, the BHA somehow just fail to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Surely before putting this thread up someone would have thought things through. You’re coming on to a forum with the potential to give free and excellent feedback on what could be a significant development in the presentation of racing….and yet you don’t even bother to put a link on your post to enable those of us who missed the live broadcast to properly analyse those events.
Without even having seen the enquiry it’s obvious from the other posts that if you are hoping to achieve greater transparency in racing then this latest venture falls way short of what is required. If on the other hand you just want to provide TV viewers with a bit of entertainment then our views are immaterial.
Personally, enquiries should be publicly accessible via a video link on the BHA website, warts and all, and to include all participants. The minute you begin editing by omitting the officials’ contributions and produce something for broadcasting to millions then you will invariably create a false scenario with each of the individuals playing to the cameras, either consciously or unconsciously.

[aji]

Question 1
Please give us an indication of how interesting you found the Stewards Enquiry broadcast?

That particluar one was fairly uninteresting because there was little substance to it. However, I can see some would be very interesting, e.g. 1000 Guineas enquiry, July Cup enquiry.

Question 2
Can you please tell us, in a few words, why you felt it was of this level of interest?

As above, not much to it just minor interference no prospect of the result changing.
…………………………………………………

Question 3
The televising of the Stewards’ Enquiry was done on a trial basis. We now need to discover if enquiries are sufficiently interesting to be shown regularly on TV. Do you think they should be shown? (delete as appropriate)
Yes – the more important ones

Question 4
Please provide us with any further feedback you might wish to give regarding this trial

The stewards discussion was not shown, I hope it will be in future. If not, there’s not much value in showing just the jockeys comments.

[Lingfield]

I did see the enquiry on C4.
Problem was that it was an open and shut case as there was no danger whatsoever of Midday losing the race given the winning margin and UK rules.

We heard the jockeys. Soumillon gave an explanation but never gave a reason as to why he might get the race – the trainer he rode for later conceded the best horse had won.
Queally articulated the "best horse won" argument.
Some said his 2 day ban was a bit harsh given he was using his stick in the "correct hand" though I believe current guidelines are that he should have put it down?

The thing then became rather pointless as we could not hear the stewards deliberations. C4 moved on to Newmarket for a live race.

As has been said, I imagine the July Cup and 1000 Guineas enquiries were interesting if we could have heard the stewards.

I assume TV broadcasters would need to show recorded "highlights" of lengthy enquiries, although on this occasion C4 were prepared to stay with it and record the Newmarket race

Soumillon felt that viewers should see the enquiry. Queally not.

[Eastereel]

So we send in theanswers for free and some gravy trainer at Racing 4 Change gets paid £50K a year to type them into an excel spreadsheet

[Silvoir]

I’m not sure I’m allowed to use FFS on here so I’d better refrain.

The link to watch as replayed on RUK is here: http://www.racinguk.com/page/Features/0,,12542,00.html. We don’t own the rights to the video content and the email from RUK came around later today advetising the clip.

Valid point in that, because this was a pretty much open and shut case, the interest levels would have been lower than they would if the trial had been in place for the 1000 Guineas.

On the subject of hearing the Stewards deliberations, you can go to the Old Bailey and watch a trial from the public gallery but you don’t get to see the jury’s deliberations. The difference here is that the Stewards will come on afterwards and explain their decision.

[Zamorston]

I thought it was interesting but mainly because it was something new and something I’d not seen before.

I think once you’ve seen a couple it will become boring and something of hardly any interest, unless it is something like the finish of the Guineas.

If I was trying to look at it from the perspective of someone new to racing…I think I’d be questioning why Tom Queally picked up a ban, after his explanaition and seeing the race, he had the whip in the correct hand and gave a real sharp crack to try and stop the horse drifting across the track.

I don’t see what more he could have done and the interference was very minimal, so thought the 2 days was harsh.

If those stewards were operating in Formula One it would be fantastic entertainment!

[Prufrock]

I didn’t see it (and have failed to get the link to work), and therefore cannot comment on it, but I applaud RFC for bringing this initiative in.

If it really is as boring in this instance as people suggest then I suspect we will soon get to the stage where televising of stewards’ enquiries will be regarded as optional by the television company. But it’s a good option to have in certain circumstances.

[bluechariot]

Silvoir I don’t think you can compare an enquiry to a jury trial and if we can’t see the deliberations then I would be against televising any of it.

On other matters did Darren Williams have his licence restored today, have not seen any press reports on the matter and why was the O’Brien hearing not open to the press?

Looks like the O’Brien hearing is going to cost a fortune in legal fees to both sides and one wonders is it worth it for an incident that appears trivial to most onlookers. Has the BHA not got better uses for its limited resources.

[conundrum]

Silvoir wrote…you can go to the Old Bailey and watch a trial from the public gallery but you don’t get to see the jury’s deliberations.

With respect Silvoir, that is somewhat patronising in tone and as someone who can be very patronising at the best of times I do know what I’m talking about.

If you defend the lack of full transparency using the above example then I have to question who are the real criminals in this case. The BHA for providing a ‘safe house’ for the stewards or the stewards themselves for hiding behind a screen for fear of witness intimidation?

What’s the big deal about not being able to witness the deliberations…it’s been shown before now on television.

Why you seem somewhat reluctant to be open-minded to us witnessing the full deliberations is puzzling. Surely, at this ‘discussion’ stage one might expect you to be more ameniable to suggestions or is it all an open and shut case your Honour?

[jose1993]

Do the BHA ever question the steward/s if they’ve called, as Chapman said, a "frivolous enquiry?" I have as much chance of breaking the 100m WR as Midday had of being demoted.

The stewarding process in Britain definitely holds back any potential entertainment from a viewers’ perspective.

[Maxilon 5]

Really enjoyed it and think it should become part of the regular raceday experience for TV watchers.

[Himself]

There was a similar tv showing of a Stewards’Inquiry a few years ago. I’m sure John Reid was involved.

I thought Tom Queally put his case across very well; in an articulate manner and he knew ( we all did ) that his horse would keep the race.

I did get the distinct impression though that the stewards were a pompous lot and filled with a sense of their own importance – and had one jockey ( Queally in this case ) so much as raised his voice in anger or whispered one word of disrespect towards them, then those gentleman with the accompanying panamas would have gladly disqualified said winner – and sent TQ on a year’s holiday to Siberia, without a moment’s regard – or remorse.

Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning

[Author]

Posts