- This topic has 42 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Himself wrote…the stewards were a pompous lot and filled with a sense of their own importance
And we, the viewing public are, not unlike the jockeys, sent out of the room just as the Gin and Tonics are being served. I doff my hat in reverence. But come to think of it, why should I?
For it to work, I think you need to leave the cameras running when the Jockeys have left the room so we can listen to the Stewards’ interpretation of the evidence the Jockeys have just supplied.
- Total Posts 17716
I just don’t see the point of it.
Far from being innovative and informative, I thought the whole episode verged on embarassing and served only to show two of Europe’s leading jockeys being treated like school children who had caught the vengeful eye of the headteacher.
The only part of the stewarding process that holds any appeal or intrigue is the deliberation of the stewards themselves in assessing all of the evidence presented to them – and that’s what we don’t get to see. But even then, do we really need video evidence of them swallowing whatever nonsense they’re given, whether it be biased race accounts (a la Soumillon) or the vacant gaze of someone who’s just pocketed a fortune? Does ‘we’ll accept the trainer’s lack of an explanation for the rather drastic improvement in form, when the horse just happened to be hammered in to 8/1 from 40/1, and do absolutely nothing’ really make for good television?
It’s window-dressing, pure and simple and sadly indicative of the touch-up, paint-over-the-cracks job Racing For Change are happy to do. I’d much prefer they addressed the issue of consistent and fair stewarding, as well as taking steps to curb the rather arrogant and condescending attitude of certain individuals.
Like some Big Brother/Judge Judy hybrid, I enjoyed it immensely and would only ask – ”what took you so long..?”
- Total Posts 17716
Unless the BHA are prepared to broadcast the stewards’ deliberations, then what we are getting merely panders to modish voyeurism – we get the foreplay without the act.
Of course, the reason those deliberations are
not
shown has little to do with the kind of legal niceties outlined by Silvoir, and everything to do with fear at the potential embarrassment caused by the viewers being privy to the sight of amateur (and occasionally ignorant) part-timers being put right by the professional "stipe".
Much better put the broadcasting budget towards training and employing a full quota of qualified, professional stewards with more consistent standards.
Question 1
Please give us an indication of how interesting you found the Stewards Enquiry broadcast?
Fairly interesting
Question 2
Can you please tell us, in a few words, why you felt it was of this level of interest?
Of the options available while interested I couldn’t say I was ‘very interested’. However, given different circumstances i.e. I had backed one of the gee-gees or the specific incident was more complex then my interest may be raised to ‘very’.
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?
Yes (although I assume there is no addition financial cost to Racing, in doing so)
Question 4
Please provide us with any further feedback you might wish to give regarding this trial
I think it would be wrong to draw any firm conclusions based upon the one Stewards Enquiry that has been broadcast. The level of interest will vary depending on the circumstances but imv the opening up of the process can only be good.Live coverage of enquiries is a fairly pointless path to follow because a) as pointed out here, most are cut and dried b) in 95% of cases, the TV company will either have another live race to show while the enquiry is taking place, or the program will be ending (cf Dubai World Cup).
What would be more useful would be to have the information about the result posted more promptly on the website (a Friday evening enquiry at present appears sometime on Monday), and for the reports to be written in plain English, rather than the legalese currently employed.
As to the format of enquiries, it would be a big improvment if the decision on the result of the race was separated from the decision on disciplinary action against the jockey. First sort out the result, and announce that decision as quickly as possible (this is the only part that is worth televising anyway), then deal with the jockeys.
Quite why it is considered necessary to make the decision on a ban that starts nine days hence before the start of the next race is one of the great mysteries of racing.
AP
As an attempt at transparency it fails on all counts if you are unable to see the whole process of decision making played out by the stewards.
As has been mentioned already, all you get to see is two jockeys being treated as if they’re up in front of the headmaster after having a playground scrap … I half expected "young Master Queally" to have to bend over for "six of the best" at one point.
I believe it added nothing new for the knowledgable racing folk and all it did for the general public not familiar with the workings of the sport was to reinforce the "us and them" stereotype and suggest that in order to be a steward you must be ex-public school and a little bit "Tim-nice-but-dim". Broadcasting the stewards’ deliberations would give them the opportunity to establish their credibility … or maybe (for some reason) this would be considered too risky.
If the stewards aren’t confident enough to debate the issues live on air given their educational background and position, imagine how many jockeys not as articulate as Mr Queally and Mr Soumillon would be bricking it at the thought of having to explain their actions on live TV.
I remember seeing a Stewards Enquiry televised in Australia which was hopeful at best. But by allowing the jockeys to talk over the patrol films and indicate what they thought was happening, I gained an insight into how the race unfolded.
The stewards delirations were in front of the connections as will as on TV. Made quite interesting seeing the faces of the connections of the second horse to "think more carefully before making a frivilous objection: and being fined for the privilege.
I remember seeing a Stewards Enquiry televised in Australia which was hopeful at best. But by allowing the jockeys to talk over the patrol films and indicate what they thought was happening, I gained an insight into how the race unfolded.
The stewards delirations were in front of the connections as well as on TV. Made quite interesting seeing the faces of the connections of the second horse to "think more carefully before making a frivilous objection: and being fined for the privilege.I didn’t see the enquiry at first hand but I believe it’s a no brainer to continue this initiative. Some of the comments on the thread are a little disappointing (but not Ugly Mare’s, which gives me a brilliant idea – let’s sack the stewards at Kempton and bring in Judge Judy for the winter AW season). I’d agree that hearing the full enquiry would be better than the present format, but it’s a big step in the right direction.
Well I watched it and found the piece interesting, mainly because I’d never seen one before.
Given the current funding situation its a nice to have rather than a need to have imo. My only interest in watching a race is to see who the winner is, so any enquiries on non result changing interference and excessive use of the whip, which it seems are involved in the vast majority of enquiries would be of no interest to me and I wouldn’t watch them.
Granted this years 1000 Guineas’s enquiry would have made for riveting television, but how often does that happen? Hardly ever.
I’d prefer to see what money there is available being spent on more practical, cheaper and easier achieved projects.
Why don’t you start with painting a line across racecourses at the 2f and 1f poles, or cutting a grass verge so we can take basic sectionals. This could be done by next week.
Pay the BHA website man a bit of overtime in the Summer, so that he can update the non runner list after 5pm to cover the evening meetings.
Con – it was not meant to be patronising and I’m sorry if it came across that way – it was a simple statement of fact.
Think of any legal hearing or any other sports tribunal, whether it’s the Old Bailey, Magistrates Court, Court of Appeal an employment tribunal, Stewards Enquiry, Disciplinary Panel hearing etc. Most are open to the public to watch proceedings, but the public do not get to see the deliberations – whether that is the jury’s deliberations, magistrate’s deliberations etc. This is a long enshrined principal of British law, so whilst the jury example would have been better replaced by a tribunal or magistrates court, it is a valid point. Like those examples, the Stewards responsibility is then to be available to explain their thinking and decision.
To suggest that we’re essentially ‘going through the motions’ of getting feedback is a nonsense – my initial comment was borne out of the frustration of reading some of the typical comments that I often see on here combined with trying to manage expectations. I should have delayed my reply.
I don’t get to post on here as often as I used to 6 months to a year ago as my team has halved in size and with a young family don’t have as much time as I used to once I get home. However, I’m sure some posters on here will confirm that I won’t come on here blindly and evangelically defending everything we do and every decision we make.
In light of that, I’d make two further comments. As far as I’m aware, we are still the only sport in this country that opens any of its Disciplinary processes up to the press. We were the first to issue detailed reasons for decisions taken by the Disciplinary Panel (followed relatively recently by football and rugby). We’ve been publishing online all Stewards Enquiries for coming up for 10 years. Transparency therefore is something we’re pretty good at, though calls for increasing transparency are understandable.
I’m not saying it won’t ever happen, but with Saturday the first time it’s ever been shown live here, it’s a gradual process (to coin a phrase, evolution not revolution). There are other measures that we could take to increase transparency and interest. One example, would be actually explaining Stewards’ decisions in their notices rather than just stating what those decisions are. Another would be exploring the possibility is, instead of/as well as allowing press access to certain Disciplinary Panel hearings, we could live stream them.
Secondly, whilst I’ve sat in a number of enquiries I’d never witnessed an enquiry that could possibly affect placings. I personally found it interesting to a degree, and agree with many on here that it would have been more interested of the chance of a reversal was higher. What I don’t agree with are the couple of comments regarding arrogance. I don’t believe there’s any evidence from the enquiry that anyone was arrogant (the only possible ‘evidence’ being their accents). There was understandably an element of nervousness. It’s a minor point but would the jockeys being called by their first names make any difference to perception?
There’s been a couple of mentions of costs – just to confirm there’s been no cost to us and I’m pretty sure no cost to the broadcaster. They didn’t need extra staff and I believe the used equipment they already had.
Regarding two of Cav’s two points:
Why don’t you start with painting a line across racecourses at the 2f and 1f poles, or cutting a grass verge so we can take basic sectionals. This could be done by next week.
It could, and it would be great fun to see the horses jump over it…I watch American football a fair bit, and watch Equidia, the they have imposed lines on the pitch/course and I’ve never understood why our broadcasters don’t/can’t do it. That’s the solution, not a mown or painted line, coupled with having actual sectional timing. If we had the money (ie if racing got anywhere close to the level of return back from betting that France get) we could do it.
Pay the BHA website man a bit of overtime in the Summer, so that he can update the non runner list after 5pm to cover the evening meetings.
It’s a direct live feed so that shouldn’t happen – we’re looking into it.
It could, and it would be great fun to see the horses jump over it…I watch American football a fair bit, and watch Equidia, the they have imposed lines on the pitch/course and I’ve never understood why our broadcasters don’t/can’t do it. That’s the solution, not a mown or painted line, coupled with having actual sectional timing. If we had the money (ie if racing got anywhere close to the level of return back from betting that France get) we could do it.
Pay the BHA website man a bit of overtime in the Summer, so that he can update the non runner list after 5pm to cover the evening meetings.
It’s a direct live feed so that shouldn’t happen – we’re looking into it.
Thanks Silvoir.
I watch too much racing and I rarely see horses jumping the multitude of paths that criss-cross the nations racecourses or finishing lines for that matter. The odd one will do it but its very much the exception. The imposed lines would be the ideal solution but once again that takes matters out of RFC’s hands, which sounds familiar.
I like the BHA site for non-runners. Its very reliable for daytime racing and its timestamped which I find very useful. Would be good if that can be extended to evening meetings.
Cav – I know when they put down the line of grass cuttings 10 yards behind the starting line in the Grand National the other year a number (not all) jumped it second time round.
Confused about the NR thing because it’s a live feed so should constantly update for any non-runners declared online via the Racing Admin site (either via a trainer of the clerk of the course). Will get to the bottom of it and let you know.
Any chance the record button can be pressed regarding Casela Park to be shown later on?
Every member of this forum would love to hear the explanations concerning how that was rode. Dean McKeown never rode a horse in that style…
And as for the veterinary examination – if Casela Park is suffering from a whiplash like condition, please refer the case to the RPSCA, police etc.
Just regarding stewards enquiries, Silvoir. It was good of you to clarify the situation regarding the need to have Casela Park inspected twice after the race at Newcastle this afternoon. But that news reached viewers of ATR an hour and 20 minutes after the race had been run.
One of the horrible truths is that a lot of us were sitting here wondering whether the stewards had missed it entirely (it has happened before). I believe the stewards should be mindful of the need to communicate with the public even before conclusions have been arrived at, and even if the enquiry is not being televised. Then again, they may have done that but ATR did not pass it on.
Speaking of which, I would pay good money to see this one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.