Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Ah yes, of course – far be it for me to deprive them of a pleasant day out at the races…:biggrin:
Below are the contact details for the Jockey Club should anyone want to tip off the bunch of coffin dodgers at Portman Square about these cowboys. Rather undermines John Maxse’s claims that there is no problem with allowing owners to lay their own horse on the exchanges.
Tel: 0207 486 4921<br>Fax: 0207 935 8703<br>E-mail: info@thejockeyclub.co.uk<br>
Alternatively, perhaps Betfair could use their sophistocated tracing capabilities (the ones that Mark Davies was extolling the virtues of the other week) in order to discover the identity of who was laying the horse to such a degree.
Then again, I won’t hold my breath.<br>
(Edited by marling at 3:02 pm on June 10, 2003)
Would entirely agree Ian but there often appears an ingrained and tired cynicism within many sections of the racing press that always seeks to highlight the worst case scenario and seems to take a perverse delight in so doing.
A classic recent example of what I’m talking about was the recent Channel 4 lunchtime programme debacle.  Alright it had its flaws and the quality of the racing was sometimes abysmal but this was a real opportunity for racing to sell itself on a wider stage (and, perhaps more importantly, convince Channel 4 that its vast investment in the sport was potentially justified).  Right from the off, however, it was clear that a large section of the racing press (and the RP in particular) were itching to put the boot in and seemed to waste no opportunity in which to slag both the programme (and the concept behind it) off.  For whatever reason – Mark Winstanley has suggested it was essentially petty jealousy on the part of those not invited to take part in it – the programme didn’t stand a chance.  If racing’s press weren’t prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt and promote the programme, why should we have expected Channel 4 to have persisted with the format, even in a modified/improved manner.  As a result the prophecies became self-fulfilling and the programmes fate was effectively sealed within a few days of its first show.
Of course if there is a scandal/issue within the industry that needs addressing, then strong criticism from the racing press is entirely proper (and ultimately beneficial).  From reading the Racing Post, however, you are often left with the impression that the sport is on its knees and one step from becoming obsolete.  I can’t think of another sport (or, indeed, another racing nation), whose specialist press are so consistently pessimistic or downbeat.
Don’t get me wrong, it is not the Racing Post’s job to pretend all is rosy when it’s not.  As the sole remaining trade paper though it should accept a degree of responsibility to ensure that the impression it conveys of the sport is balanced and, whenever appropriate, that the good things in the sport are given the exposure they deserve.
The racing press could certainly benefit by some fresh, young talent coming through the ranks. Many of the feature writers / columnists on the Racing Post (with the exception of Alastair Down) almost seem to revel in the failings of the industry and don’t appear happy unless they’re slagging some aspect of it off. Not only is this depressing to read, it does the sport a disservice.
Hardy Eustace’s performance to win the RSA Hurdle was top drawer – andy one of the 1st four would have been a worthy winner in a normal year
When this was first mooted, Edward Gillespie stated that the first priority was to conduct a survey of racegoers for their views. Well I’m a member at Cheltenham and I sure as hell wasn’t consulted (nor do I know of anyone who was). My guess is that if such a survey had been undertaken the response would be along the same lines as most of the posts here.
Perhaps the BHB will step in and refuse to authorise the new races (on the basis that they threaten similar races at other courses, thuis no doubt making the NH season even more unhealthily focussed on the Festival than is currently the case) but I’m not going to hold my breath….
Perhaps a reason why the Pipe/McCoy dominance isn’t slagged off as being too boring is that you still get the feeling that the small outfit has a chance in the NH game. You might not be able to compete numerically with Pipe but a few thousand guineas (sorry euros!) wisely spent can still land you with a horse capable of challenging in the best races. On the flat these days, the best bloodstock all goes for 6+ figure sums and the top races increasingly seem a closed shop between the top 2 stables. Just hope that the recent escalation in NH bloodstock doesn’t have the same effect over the jumps.<br>
