- This topic has 107 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Greed is the curse of mankind, and it’s not just racing that’s afflicted.
Look at politicians, top civil servants, executives of companies, the City, charities…….
No-one says stop. No-one is shamed. Those below are brainwashed by example into worshipping money and what it can buy.
We are also controlled by ‘divide and rule’, just to ensure we don’t unite against those at the top.
So, with racing, we see trainers, who should be more intelligent, berate one of their own. The issue of prize money, and other major problems, is lost because of squabbling from participants within the system.No probs, Max.
I have some sympathy for what those behind the boycott were supposedly trying to achieve but no sympathy for how they appeared to set about doing it and a lot of scepticism about their real motives and values.
Along with Greg Wood, and many others on here, I have long been very concerned about the situation of more and more racing for less and less money.
Lots of inuendo in your last post Prufrock, but no substance of fact. Perhaps you could enlighten us about how else you think owners and trainers could have expressed dissatifaction with Yarmouth, and precisely what you mean by cynicism about their motives?
richard
Lots of inuendo in your last post Prufrock, but no substance of fact. Perhaps you could enlighten us about how else you think owners and trainers could have expressed dissatifaction with Yarmouth, and precisely what you mean by cynicism about their motives?
richard
Scepticism, not cynicism. And I fail to see what "inuendo" there was, much less "lots of" it.
I used words like "supposedly" and "appeared" as some of the remarks made – notably by Johnston and Gosden – seem at odds with the noble intentions they have claimed for their behaviour.
Trainers are perfectly entitled to express their dissatisfaction with the situation individually, or collectively if due process has been followed. They, and owners, have bodies to represent them in these matters. Having arranged an unofficial boycott, the trainers should accept that not everyone was willing to toe their line rather than resort to name-calling or coercion.
As it happens, they have been successful in bringing the issue to wider attention, though not in quite the manner they had intended.
As with anyone engaging in direct action like this, it is to be imagined that they are prepared to pay the price for their principles. The horses may be in their care but they are not their property, and as such it is highly dubious for trainers to use them to make a political point – however "valid" they feel the point is – without first consulting those who pay the bills. If I were an owner and had not been consulted in this matter I would consider taking my horse away forthwith.
It is easy to imagine from all this that the trainers named are assuming power that they are not entitled to, and acting as spokespeople for an industry when they are not entitled to, rather than just making what they feel is a valid protest.
In terms of their wider values, I wonder how indulgent the named trainers would be if their own staff acted in such a fashion to make a political point, such as about pay and working conditions. Their forebears were not exactly sympathetic to the stable-lads’ strike of 1975, were they?
If they arrange a boycott for a small maiden at Yarmouth it is going to affect the likes of Christine Dunnett far more than the bigger Newmarket stables.
If they are outraged about Prize Money contributions, then let us see Gosden et al boycott a Listed or a Group race. Now that would make a statement – and no Christine Dunnetts to whip into line either…
The relative importance of Yarmouth to the various parties in the debate can be demonstrated by looking at the figures for the number of runners they had there in 2007 as a percentage of their total runners for the year.
Johnston 13/998
Gosden 12/401 (three of those in the same race)
Haggas 22/376
Dunnett 66/210
AP
ap – There’s never going to be anything close to a consensus on this, but it’s not difficult to pick holes in those figures. Why would a trainer in Middleham have a higher-than average number of runners at Yarmouth ?…and Christine Dunnett trains in Norfolk and has horses in her yard suited to the races on offer at Yarmouth. She’s local; with a group of local owners, so there is always going to be the inclination to run at Yarmouth.
Christine Dunnett is starting to become rather over-exposed now for me. Her letter in this morning’s RP is further proof of this. She says she supports the standpoint but didn’t withdraw the horse at the 48day stage. A chancer enjoying her moment in the sun if ever there was one.
Simple answer is that it is easier to boycott something you barely use
Would Johnston have boycotted Ripon say and upset a few key owners in the early part of his career?
If you’re going to use the word innuendo lads, at least spell it right!
Er, that should be "lad". My use of it was deliberately (and pedantically) in quotation marks!
Good point again, clivex.
Tim Easterby apparently boycotted Redcar on Monday because of the prize money and ran some horses at Pontefract yesterday instead.
He then went on to win the £12k added h’cap with Collateral Damage.Thousand apologies Pru, should have known your classical education would preclude a howler like that
I’ve just had a look back in the archives at a jumps equivalent of this week’s proposed action that occured at Sedgefield on September 5th, 2003.
From an initial entry of 49 runners, only Prize Ring of George Moore’s and Crosby Donjohn from the John Weymes yard turned out for the opening novices’ hurdle, all other trainers having withdrawn their charges as a protest against prizemoney.
My abiding memories of the incident then as now are that;
– the first prize of knocking three grand was hardly tiny in the wider scheme of things for a Class E weekday Northern hurdle, especially compared to what winning a similar contest might net you nowadays,
– there was no significant barracking of messrs Moore and Weymes, if any at all, by their contemporaries for digging in their heels.
Essentially that dissenting tranche of the Northern jumps fraternity made its point, didn’t really ignite the degree of support it had hoped for, and didn’t bang on about it too much after that.
I also noted to myself at the time that there seemed to be a certain inconsistency about conducting the action at Sedgefield barely a week after they had all descended en masse on Cartmel, where whatever concerns there may have been over the just as bad, or maybe even worse, prizemoney at the Lakeland venue were conveniently left at the door whilst they enjoyed its singular atmosphere and charm.
Surely if, say, two grand is unacceptably low prizemoney for winning at one venue, the same figure is unacceptably low for winning at another venue?
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Gratuitous Cartmel references: um, lost count. Probably loads.
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.
I actually sent an e-mail last night to Christine Dunnet to offer support and tell her how it was bad that some of the more bigger trainers saw fit to slag her off and chastise her for declaring runners at Yarmouth.
When i got home from work i checked my e-mails and amazingly she has contacted me to say thank you which is a really lovely and nice gesture when you consider that fact that she has a stable to run and work to be done.
I have very little interest in flat racing, but can someone tell me if there are professional owners of racehorses who have no other income stream? No I didn’t think so, so what on earth are they moaning about when it comes to prize money?
Do racehorse owners throughout the world get the VAT concession paid by us other mugs who have no or little chance of ever owning a racehorse?
Racehorse ownership is a hobby and most people don’t expect to make money from a hobby.
Thanks for raising the Sedgefield race Grays, because it ties in nicely with some information Prufrock might find useful. For those who find this subject boring, perhaps it’s best if I warn this is a longish post.
You say Prufrock:
"Trainers are perfectly entitled to express their dissatisfaction with the situation individually, or collectively if due process has been followed. They, and owners, have bodies to represent them in these matters. Having arranged an unofficial boycott, the trainers should accept that not everyone was willing to toe their line rather than resort to name-calling or coercion".
I don’t know why this hasn’t been reported in the racing press but the issue of tracks’ contribution to prize money is something the ROA have been pushing very hard in BHB meetings (the NTF didn’t have official representation until recently through the horseman’s group) A good many tracks have responded positively. Others haven’t. The President of the NTF is quoted in the RP as saying:
" …we have aired our views to Northern Racing over a number of years and not really been listened to…"
Both organisations have been following a due process, with no result so far as Northern Racing and Yarmouth are concerned. So what choice, do they have but to make a public protest?
That protest could not have have been organised by the NTF because it would have been illegal for them to have done so. Which brings us back to 2003.
At that time, when coincidentally the OFT investigation into racing was going on, the Levy board (ie bookmakers) announced a cut in funding and one of the ways in which that effected racing was a cut in minimum race values across the board, regardless of track. The response from the NTF and ROA was to urge their members to boycott races with a prize money value of less than £4k on the basis that tracks could, if they wanted to, make up the difference.
The immediate response from the OFT was to issue a letter to the NTF and the ROA warning, " that such action could be in breach of the 1998 competition act" The two bodies had to withdraw their recommedations and any action was now down to individual members, as it had to be in the Yarmouth situation.
Digressing slightly, Sedgefield was the most well known of the boycotts which took place, which I happen to remember well because I owned a horse which was part of it. Whether as a result of the boycotts and the possibility of others, who knows, but lo and behold the bookies suddenly found they would be contributing more to the levy and minimum prize money levels were restored. A portent for the Yarmouth situation? Also the owners and trainers actions were subject to a good deal of criticism from some racing journos, in very much the same vein as now. Those journalists were wrong though, as it turned out.
As to coercion of Mrs Dunnet, no trainer who had entries in that race was coerced, they were just asked. As she said herself in the RUK interview, she was not bullied , nor did she use the term bullying herself. Any such innuendo ( that word again) which appeared in the press is pure media hype and invention. Makes for a sensational story, but has no basis in fact.
I don’t understand though, Prufrock,your comment about trainers making a " a political point… without first consulting those who pay the bills" Do you really think that a trainer would withdraw a horse without getting the owners’ approval? This is not a protest by trainers alone, it is in concert with owners, a good many of whom are getting seriously fed up with unavoidable increases in costs whilst prize money is being cut for the profit of the bookies and certain tracks. There’s nothing political about the Yarmouth boycott, it springs from the economic reality of owning and training horses.
Regarding your reference to the stable staff strike of 33 years ago, what on earth has that to do with the economics of racing in 2008? Frankly it’s about as useful a contribution to the debate as someone suggesting that certain journalists’ criticisms of the Yarmouth action were as a result of the "hospitality" they receive from Northern Racing.
richard
I think 1975 is very relevant. A strike is a strike and why not speculate on what Johnston and Gosdens reaction would have been if they had been the target?
Didnt Johnston get well and truely wound up about the RP’s ccampaign for stable staff a couple of years back? Interesting to look back at what he was saying then….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.