Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Qadrilla is of course quite right to say that the Newmarket stewards did hold an enquiry into the interference caused by RRC. My fault for creating the wrong impression, I meant should have held an enqury into team tactics.
But I do take issue with suggestions that anyone who dares critise Coolmore is either anti-Irish or has some kind of overriding dislike of Coolmore. In my case, neither applies.
I just believe that the rules of racing should be applied to everyone, regardless of how wealthy they are or how poweful they are in the bloodstock market. In this instance the powers that be had obviously decided, initially at least, that they would not apply the rules of to Coolmore in respect of team tactics. As subsequent posters have pointed out, that dereliction of duty seriously diminishes the HRA
If they won’t apply the rules to Coolmore unless the press – and I would suggest a groundswell of opinion from people who take a serious interest in racing as well as professionals – force them into it, then they don’t have the moral authority to apply them to anyone. That way lies anarchy.
richard
Have to say, think some of the posts on this thread are astonishing.
The fact of the matter is that O’Bs second jock pleaded guilty to employing team tactics, in case anyone missed that here it is again:
O’DONOGHUE PLEADED GUILTY
So what are the disciplinary panel supposed to do? Because it’s Coolmore with their very powerful and professional lawyers and pr consultants and their ability to move Irish government policy, should they be immune from the rules of racing in the UK?
Be interesting to read the full report of the hearing -and I stand to be corrected by that- but it appears O’B was denying that he gave tactical instructions to his jocks, they decided on their own that team tactics would be employed. Yep, pigs have wings and the earth is flat, so some would have us believe.
Certainly the Newmarket stewards – who normally hold an enquiry at the slightest suggestion of a breach of the rules- need to explain why they didn’t hold an enquiry into that race. And would the HRA have acted unless they had been bounced into it by press reports of Murtagh’s comments and a couple or so of brave journalists who raised the issue of team tactics?
Be that as it may, this is a great result for GB racing. Because it shows that multi-billionaire owners are subject to the rules of racing as much as are ordinary owners.
richard
Spitfire,
What was Gainsborough now operates as Rabbah Bloodstock – friends and family of Sheik Mo their web site says. Personally, don’t know much about R B, but here’s a lnk to their website.
http://www.gainsborough-stud.com/about-us/default.asp
richard
Lydia Hislop wrote a very carefully worded article in the Guardian on this subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/au … rseracing1
Because of the way it is worded, maybe safer not to comment on it.
But a personal opinion is that it really is about time the BHA applied the rules of racing to Ballydoyle tactics.
richard
Magic racecourse Cartmel, personal view of course but it’s a track all NH fans maybe should try to visit. Atmosphere and setting is is terrific Was fortunate enough to have a runner there a few years back. Trained in Newmarket he was the only horse to come so far, The staff couldn’t have been nicer and kinder, they made his THG and lass so very welcome for their overnight stay.
When we drove into the OT’s car park, the attendant twigged which horse we had ‘cos I guess of our Newmarket members badge on the windscreen. Wouldn’t let us out of the car to go to the hut to prove ourselves, did it himself and then conducted us to a spot in the car park which he explained was not only near the course but easy to exit from. Didn’t ask for any of that but we so much appreciated the attention. It’s the only track we have ever had a runner at where all the staff we met including the maagement made a point of being so appreciative that we had decided to run at their track.Terrific racecourse, long may it continue and well worth visiting.
richard
Sorry, should have said not much different to those trainers who were recently traing horses in sheik Mo’s colours.
richard
Spitfire,
The horses that used to run in sheik Mo’s colours have been transferred to his wife Princess Haya. I can’t pretend to have checked out her trainers, but I’d guess they aren’t much different to the ones you list.
richard
That might be your personal prejudice Clivex, but in my experience -and I’ve been to every racecourse in GB- a lot of people who go racing look upon it as an occasion, ie a total experience and accordingly dress smartly ( I don’t mean expensively) Respecting the dress code is part of that experience and contributes to their enjoyment of the meet.
As to being turned away for not wearing a tie, those racecourses that do have strict dress codes make the requirements very clear. More to the point, those racecourses that require a tie in day members (whatever the enclosure is called) usually have a stock of ties for the odd person who turns up without one. Might be a couple of quid to hire and a bit scruffy, but the lack of a tie isn’t going to stop someone getting in.
richard
Think that is a good point Cormack. The cost of buying NH horses, whether for racing or breeding generally is significantly less than for primarilly flat horses.
Jumps racing is prevalent only in the UK, Ireland and France. The French buy very few horses at UK and Irish sales, and UK buyers are not competing with Darley, Americans, Japanese, Saudis and so on. Also, whilst I don’t know what the likes of P. N., H-J, D. P. charge in training fees, my experience for what it is worth is that jumps training fees are noticeably less than is usual with flat trainers.
The economics of NH ownership generally are more favourable to owners than is the case with flat racing, certainly from an overall cost point of view.
Also, getting back to one of Glen’s points, the jumping fraternity didn’t allow PDS to turn jumps racing into the bookies’ benefit that flat racing became under his chairmanship of the BHB. Instead, they instigated some changes (beginners chases for example), but kept the basic structure of the race program by type of race such as to encourage owners to keep horses in training. No artificial field size limits or artificially imposed handicap bands for example. One reason perhaps why the biggest increase in the type of horses in training is dual purpose horses, essentially flat horses being turned into jumpers.
richard
For what it’s worth, I think the problem is that there aren’t enough indigenous UK nationals with the money or the interest in horeracing to invest in bloodstock.The number of stallion studs in the UK has been and is declining significantly (for flat horses) – as Kirsten Rausing constantly points out. Very few UK mare studs can compete with the Arabs, Coolmore and overseas, including Irish, buyers generally for the best bloodstock at the sales, whether foals, yearlings and so on upwards in age.
Ireland of course had the stallion tax exemption which served them very well and even though that has has been abolished the Irish government effectively subsdises Irish racing.
Zorro is essentially right I think.The UK is the only major horseracing jurisdiction where the governing body sees it’s prime function as making money for the off course bookmakers, who suck massive profits from the sport and pay a pittance for being handed that golden goose. But it is not just prize money, rather the amount of money available to UK racing in general. The French, for example have an excellent system which rewards French bred runners.
The worry is that with the UK economy heading south, even more of our better bloodstock will be sold to go abroad.
Without a fundamental reform of the way racing is financed, it’s hard to see how the situation can be remedied. As the bookmakers have a very good relationship with the current government, it may be unlikely that any significant change will happen.
richard
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
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
High Ken, there is a counter arguement. Because French horses are trained -not necessarilly run – from an earlier age, their bone structure and muscles are better conditioned than traditional British/Irish stores. Therefore they can stand more racing. This point was made by Mcnae/Willoughby on RUK this evening. From my own limited experience of talking to French racing professionals, they make the same point.
The downside possibly is that some French horses who need a good deal of time to develop are brought on too quickly, with adverse consequences. But I don’t think the latter point can be applied to Kauto Star. Also he is not a pure bred and French crosses can be very tough indeed.
richard
The prize money and level of racing at Kempton and Lingfield has a lot to do with Great Leighs as a lot of GL’s fixtures were transferred to those two tracks.
richard
Wallace is dead right about stable environment and the health of horses. Which is why any racing stable worthy of the name makes sure their boxes are properly maintained and the horses are mucked out twice and regularly disinfected.
Back on the original topic though, I had a runner at a track not that far from the Midlands about three years ago. He was one of the first to arrive and when his THG went to check out the stabling, she was dismayed to discover that the stables had not been cleaned from the last meeting, mouldy straw, droppings. stagnant water were still still there.
To her credit she sought out the then MD of the course and pointed this out, the initial response was – ridiculous, can’t be the case. To which her response was – come and see for yourself then.
Also the toilet/washing facilities for the lads/lasses had not been cleaned since the last meeting either.
This was reported, but I have no idea whether the authorities took any action with regard to the course, I suspect not.
On the bright side, have not experienced anything as bad as that since, but I have every sympathy with trainers who are worried about the basic hygene in racecourse stables. There is a great deal of variability in the capability of management of individual racecourses, ranging from stabling to the way they manage the ground on the course itself.
richard
Horses love polytrack AP? Think that’s a bit strong. Some horses might act on it, there are a good many that don’t and there are plenty of horses around that prefer fast ground on turf.
And your suggestion that horses don’t get injured on polytrack is not correct. The balance of the type of injuries they get does differ from turf, but horses still get injured.
richard
