Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
in general, the answer would be No on the basis that appear to be no less exciting finishes than before.
But bans for Ruby Walsh and AP McCoy for two perfectly acceptable rides that did not harm their horses, means Yes, has affected my enjoyment of the sport.
How can you have these great riders suspended for doing nothing wrong, and not only that, with a death sentence hanging over them until they get suspended again and for even longer?
Not only that, but there is no doubt that results have been affected. If horses are being abused and hurt, I have no objection to a change in the rules, and an "altered" result doesn’t bother me.
But as a sportsman, I want to see the best horse and jockey win. Because of poorly framed rules, we now have a sport where that may be increasingly, and sadly, not the case.
it is (b), wit.
Paul Roy has set his stall out to lead the world in racing regulation and administration.
Unfortunately, on levy / prize money and now the whip debacle, he has failed miserably after 5 years in the job.
Apparently he is paid a six figure sum for a part-time job, probably the equivalent of £1/2m salary per year.
Add to this a total conflict of interest with his investment company owning shares in Betfair. How can he be involved in levy negotiations or in increasing the voluntary contributions made by Betfair with his company having a stake in the exchange?
I am staggered that the "members" of the BHA as you have listed have not removed Roy and at least some of the Board.
Now we have a racing authority full of businessmen who know nothing about racing at all , the game is in tatters and frankly no further progress has been made on the funding
Ricky, that seem to suggest that the "businessmen" don’t know anything about running business either, because racing’s financial model is shot to pieces for virtually every interested party or stakeholder – with the exception of the bookmakers.
The fact that the Horsemens Group still has no position of its own on what is happening to the sport just goes to show how painfully slow so many people have been to think through and properly comprehend what’s at stake here.
I suspect that if you ask any individual in the Horsemen’s Group their own personal opinion, I’m sure they would be pretty vocal and have strong views on what should be done.
Sadly most would probably be negative towards the BHA, who are meant to be the regulatory and ruling body, but appear to have provided little leadership or common sense on the issues that matter.
For an industry to even think of challenging its ruling authority, is verging on revolution and anarchy. Hence why the Horsemen’s Group have been collectively diplomatic in at least allowing the BHA to get their house in order, even though many of its members must be privately absolutely seething at the BHA’s failure on the levy, prize money and the whip rules etc, and the disarray that the sport is collectively in.
Thanks heavens there are some great horses and jockeys around at the moment to at least provide some comfort.
Meshaheer
–
Having worked in politics (and PR!) for some time, I’ve met too many PR types who, to be frank, I just can’t trust.
Not to say that all those good at PR are untrustworthy, but those who are excellent at their job and provide excellent PR for their sport/industry (such as Frankie Dettori for example), are rare. I guess they are lucky to be multi talented!
Aidan gives plenty of time to the press and media, is always amazingly polite, even after suffering disappointing defeat. He knows how fragile racehorses and has suffered the highs and lows like everyone else.
Can’t believe he is getting criticism over this, quite clear he is a devout family man, you only have to see how he and his wife have raised their children to see that. Let alone how he deals with his stable staff and how he always congratulates them after a big race win, and acknowledges their part in a horse’s success.
As for those who are good at PR, as Meshaheeer stated, wouldn’t use that as a barometer of trust. They may be good at their job or in the public eye, but more than plenty are not very nice individuals behind closed doors.
That is clearly not the case with Aidan O’Brien.
probably one of his proudest moments since he started training, not had many Breeders Cup winners, taken a lot of criticism in the US, brave enough to put his son on board (who is an excellent rider in his own right) who may not have the chance to ride on the flat much longer.
Aidan was perfectly within his rights to enjoy that moment with his family, and not have to bow to this modern age of reality TV and intrusive media.
The interviewer could have at least asked him if he was ok to talk first.
Richard, Vodkatini is a great example of why I think should have a Rule 4 if it doesn’t run and be classed a non-runner.
The market with Vodkatini would be ostensibly created on the assumption that Vodkatini would race, though can accept that maybe a 5% risk (or increased SP) of not starting was factored into its price.
But if this horse is a 4/1 or 5/1 chance, 5% is neither here nor there….. Yet if it refuses to race, there is a disproportionate effect on the "new" market.
Those backing the remaining runners pre-race probably did not do so on the assumption that Vodkatini would not start and were effectively getting a good pice if he refused, they would have been mad to do so.
So they should not mind suffering a Rule 4 if the likes of Vodkatini is declared a non-runner
think people can accept falling at the first, getting brought down, slipping up on the turn, getting knocked over by a loose horse….. all part of the risks of NH racing.
Not being able to move a single yard past the STARTING line is well beyond the levels of acceptance though and should be deemed by the starter as a non-runner.
The first thought of backers of all other runners is that they have now got a much better bet than they had 50 yards earlier. And this in a 3m 1f chase? How can this be the case if you uphold the rules of "if you can’t win, you can’t lose"?
It was quite clear that this horse wasn’t going to start, and all pre-race backers had their head in their hands before the tapes went up.
No fairness in the current rules at all. Agree with the opening poster. Starter could easily determine a non-runner to the stewards and the crowd by the time the other runners had even reached the first.
robert, it’s difficult to equate the ethos of that mission statement to the BHA Chairman’s high handed attitude and dismissive contempt of the media (including a poor, sulking interview with Nick Luck on RUK).
Maybe he should be asked to read it before embarking on any further official BHA business.
Admittedly my view of punters is that they are simply there to finance the bookmakers, if only they knew it……
One wonders whether punters in other countries where racing is run more professionally have a voice, or feel they need to have a voice.
Would largely agree with your views, Eclipse, though punters not only contribute to the profits of bookmakers, but also to prizemoney (which is shared between not only owners, 80% I think?, but percentages also go to trainers, jockeys and their agents, and stable staff)
No idea what the actual cake is, but if say £100 is bet on a race in the UK, then on average £90 goes back to winning punters, £7-8 to bookmakers and £2-3 to the levy / prizemoney
Whereas in France, USA etc with tote operations, probably £75 goes back to winning punters and £25 straight back into racing authority coffers including administration and prizemoney.
Very different business models and why the clear way forward for the BHA and Paul Bittar is to promote a racing-owned exchange facility from which they can finance British Horse Racing rather than having to go cap in hand to the bookmakers and Betfair every year.
surely one of the biggest problems to address is how they are going faster and faster in the race, encouraged by lowering of the fences?
In turn, maybe it also encourages trainers who are not so sure about the jumping technique of their horses to take a chance, so a double whammy.
Maybe perversely, it would be better to increase the height of fences to that of 20 or 30 years ago, to encourage the riders to go slower, and also in a perverse way, have less finishers who are then subject to need for oxygen for completing the 4 1/2 mile journey at breakneck pace?
Also producing slower ground could help too? More pulled up when out of contention, would mean less finishers requiring treatment at the end of the race.
Eclipse, you are entitled to your opinion, but it’s that type of thinking and belief that has got the autocratic BHA management into trouble with levy funding, fixtures, racing integrity and more recently the whip debate.
If the punters walk away and bet on another sport, professional horse racing would die within a few months.
And before anyone says the BHA are democratic and run by committee, ignoring the interests of your clients and key stakeholders is hardly good management. The BHA are effectively in an honorary position whose number one priority is to safeguard and respresent the interests of the sport and ALL those in it. Horseracing is not a private hobby horse to be used and abused for personal gain and / or career progression (eg Nic Coward), it is one of the largest industries in the country and its "rulers" are accountable if they fall below the standards expected of good management.
…. and by the way, the FA have consistently failed to appoint the best person for the England manager’s job since probably 1970.
Just because they are in an official position to appoint the manager does not qualify them as the right persons to do so.
Someone or bodies appointed Paul Roy to be chairman of the BHA. Would that appear to be a wise decision now and does it again bring into question the ability of those in positions of authority?
As pointed out earlier, 95% of CEO’s are probably incompetent, and the opinion of the man on the street which you appear to deride, is probably no less valid.
Most people have an opinion on how the national football team should be run but they do not have the right to be involved in the decision-making process, regardless of whether they have a good idea or not.
Eclipse, I think you will find that type of high-handed management style died years ago and so did the companies / organisations / businesses that maintained them.
Modern day good practice makes customer / client service paramount above everything including how to win over all the stakeholders or interested parties in your business / activity (though whether this happens in reality is another matter, as many in a monopoly position, such as the BHA, do not have to worry about competition or accountability to survive).
Paul Ostermeyer’s analogy that a consumer of pork can’t tell a pig farmer what to do is typical of the old, small minded approach. The pork consumer will just go elsewhere given other pig farmers exist in the market and the pig-headed pig farmer will go to the wall because he did what he wanted and didn’t respond to the needs of his customer.
Pompete
02 Nov 2011, 10:35
I think we need to remember the BHA are the Regulators of Horse Racing and not Gambling.
So, as the Regulator of Horse Racing it is correct that they take representation from those they either directly regulate; jockeys, trainers, racecourses etc. or interest groups such as the RSPCA as the BHA regulate on issues of Horse Welfare with racing.
Therefore, if you own a horse you can be represented by the ROA. If you are a jockey the PJA, if you are involved with racecourses the RCA etc.
If ‘punters’ are to be represented it would be with the Gaming Commission and not the BHA or the running of the sport.[/
quote]
Pompete, you are incorrect on two counts:
1. The BHA do regulate gambling, as can be seen by their restrictions on who can lay and back on the exchanges.
2. in your own words, the BHA not only regulate, but also run or administer / manage the sport. Because they are incompetent in the latter administration (levy, whip debate, integrity etc), is why many interested groups (or stakeholders), including trainers, jockeys…. and in question here, punters….. are having to demand a greater involvement in not only regulation, but management too.
Paul, you would probably be right if you had said that "most" or 95% of punters don’t deserve to be involved in the running of horse racing because they are not informed enough of the subject.
But that is only the same as other truisms such as 95% of CEO’s are incompetent and shouldn’t be running their companies or organisations….
…. or that 95% of the population are either ignorant or uneducated when it comes to politics, yet are allowed to vote in a General Election.
Paul, interesting blog, but your argument is flawed.
No-one is suggesting that punters should run or rule racing.
But like owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, vets, farriers, horse feed and bedding providers, racecourse staff, bookmakers, media providers, journalists, caterers and many other third parties etc, they have an interest in the success and running of the sport and its survival.They can rightly be considered a valid stakeholder like all the other parties and should be represented in the administration of the sport, especially when they make a serious contribution to the owner’s prizemoney fund despite your assertion that it is coming from the bookmakers, which is absolute nonsense. If the punters all bet on sports other than horseracing, how much levy do you think the bookmakers would then contribute to racing? Answer – Nil.
You suggest that prizemoney could still be maintained by sponsorship. Do you really think that sponsors would be so keen to support a sport with a dwindling audience and reduced media coverage?
The whole sport would implode without the direct involvement of the punter and their levy contribution with a disastrous effect on all the support and periferal services connected with horseracing, let alone those directly employed in it, apparently the 5th or 6th largest industry in the country.
By the way, the pig farmer is not his own master. He is subservient to various legislation and regulation, health and safety acts passed by government and the EU, elected by the public, some of whom don’t even eat pork. Fancy being told what to do by someone who doesn’t even buy your product or has no interest in its survival?
