Forum Replies Created
- Posts
To answer your question directly Nor, no, breeders do not contribute to the levy. The levy is a commercially negotiated agreement between the betting operators and the BHB (that was) whereby the operators pay an agreed percentage of profits on betting on horseracing to the levy board who use that money to fund various aspects of racing. As Swallow Cottage’s link explains
Breeders operate a scheme called the European Breeders Fund. Basically the way it works is that stallion owners can elect to nominate a stallion for the scheme, in which case they pay a fee on a sliding scale according to the number of nominations the stallion gets. That money is then used to enhance prize money in EBF nominated races and breeders of horses in those races get a payment too if the horse gets owners’ prize money.
http://www.ebfhorseracing.com/default.asp
Hope this helps
richardGalejade,
Gary Lyons to whom Culhane and Mernagh communicated information was excluded indefinitely, one of the reasons given being:
"As a former member of the Council of the Jockey’s Association Mr Lyons’ behaviour was even more reprehensible"
Culhane is a current member of the Council, yet he provided information to Lyons 33 times.
So why was Culhane given the minimum penalty of 12 months suspension, when Lyons was excluded?
As I said in an earlier post, one of the HRA’s mitigations for Culhane was that " Culhane did not pass information knowing for what use it would be put" One has to ask, what did the panel think the information was being provided for? Are they really that naive?
My general point is this Galejade. Under the old JC regime, hardly anyone was collared for serious breach of the rules. The new HRA offered hope initially that wrongdoers would be collared and punished accordingly. Some have certainly been collared, but the punishments have been for the most part at the minimal end of the scale. Why?
Is it that the establishment when they set up the HRA looked upon it as a pr execise and were caught out by it’s initial zeal and instructions have now gone out in terms of ok you have to catch these people , but don’t be too hard on them because we want them to ride for us (or whatever)? I don’t know, but I would suggest that the sentences for Culhane and Mernagh and others are just slaps on the wrists.
To clean up the corruption in racing, albeit a small minority of the race program, requires positive action. As other posters have said, the penalties given to Culhane and Mernagh are neither an appropriate punishment nor a deterent to others.
Galejade, hope this clarifies my point of view for you.
richard
Galejade, with the greatest of respect, the stopping of horses has nothing to do with either the charges or the penalties. Culhane was charged under rule 220 (i) -aiding and abetting corrupt practices, etc and rule 201 (v) – commmunicating inside information, etc. For these transgressions it is possible to exclude, rather than just suspend those found in breach.
One of the reasons the panel gave for giving Culhane a small suspension was "that Culhane did not pass information to Mr Lyons knowing to what use it would be put".
Begs the question what the panel thought Culhane passed information on 37 occasions for?. Just out of interest? It is no wonder Lydia wrote what she did – followed up by Howard Wright. And it raises a very serious question as to the motivation of the panel in their sentencing.
Reet Hard, I am sorry if you found my response to you condescending. I would just say that there is no indication that any of the trainers connived in any way with Culhane’s and Mernagh’s activities. Also several trainers have been banged to rights by the HRA: Mcentee, Flood, Keightly and a number of others for not providing suitable instructions, schooling in public and so on. Trainers have no control over what jocks may decide to comm unicate to others. And if we are talking about dodgy rides, no control over what a jock actually does in a race.
richard
Reet Hard,you post an awful lot of opinions, but quite frankly, your knowledge of what actually goes on in racing is distant from reality.
Get real. It is the jock who rides the horse, not the trainer.richard
Lydia is one of the very few national press journalists who has got the knowledge and the courage to actually address issues which the majority of racing’s fourth estate have neither the competence or the guts to raise. Either because they are so used to cosying up to the old establishment in racing or because they are well in with the major bookies.
Take for example Brough Scott’s piece in todays RP. Never mind corruption, racing is so much better these days because back in the days of yore he once witnessed a fight at a racecourse. Very neat way of avoiding commenting on the HRA’s leniency and the basic issue of corruption.
Lydia’s point is a very, very serious one. It seemed the HRA had cast off the shackles of the old JC and were seriously trying to root out corruption.
But, if all they are now doing is giving wrongdoers a gentle slap on the wrist, what’s the point of charging them in the first place? The one sure way to clean up racing is to impose penalties that get the transgressors out of racing and send a very clear signal to anyone else that they had better not get up to no good.
The worrying thing in the lenient sentences handed out to those she names is that maybe the old guard is re-assertng control – ok uncover skulduggery – we have to do that in case Panorama do another job on us – but don’t get too carried away.
richard
Balleydoyle don’t run horses in the Irish Derby to get a good betting price. They run them to create high price stallion fees.
richard
I was at Newmarket and let me say straight away I didn’t bet on that race. But it is staggering that neither RUK, nor the RP in their analysis made any mention of the stewards’ findings. Admittedly these were announced about 15 minutes after the last race, by which time no doubt racing’s fourth estate were busy trying to recoup their losses of the day on the exchanges or enjoying someone’s free hospitality.
But the synopsis of what the stewards said was that Robinson had deliberately used his whip to hit both Havlin and Sohraab, This could be seen clearly on the replay and Robinson was banned for five days. After they crossed the line Havlin struck both Fathom Five and Robinson with his whip, for which offence he was banned for seven days.
The clown who was doing the Ruk summaries said that Robinson had prevented Havlin from using his whip, but that was not what lead to the stewards’ decision, it was Robinson hitting horse and jock.
No doubt the racing media are under strict instructions from the off course bookmakers not to frighten the punters, but both RUK and RP reporting was , to say the least, utterly inaccurate.
richard
It isn’t that I mis-understand your point Reet Hard I’d simply refer to the detailed explanations given by the HRA in the insider information cases and the rules of racing.
It is not an offence for owners, jocks or anyone else legitimately connected to a horse to have to have a view as to how a horse might run. Neither is it an offence for licensed persons to communicate that information to anyone, so long as they do not get payment in whatever form for doing so, media fees apart
So there is no need to define what is and what isn’t insider information under the current rules in respect of the situation outlined above.
There are however, grey areas in respect of what constitutes gain for insider informarion. An obvious one is the racing jounalist who picks up info. about a horse, doesn’t communicate it in whatever medium he is working in and uses it in an attempt to make money for himself. Another obvious one is a jock or trainer betting or not betting on a horse they train or ride. If, for example, a well fancied horse is not backed by the rider and if that jock has backed something else in the race (through a third party of course), then that is an opportunity for the bookie to benefit at the expense of punters. I’ve no idea of the basis of the insider information review, but if they don’t tackle those kind of situations, they are wasting their time.
What you seem to be arguing for Reet Hard is that every tiny bit of information relating to a horse’s training should be made immediately available. As Artemis has said, that’s totally impractical and quite frankly wouldn’t be very much help, because it’s what happens in the actual race that counts.
Just as an aside, the analogy with politicians doesn’t hold up. Politicians can accept whatever freebies/monies they like, they only transgress the rules if they don’t declare them. If they do transgress they are judged by their fellow politicians who may be snouting away in their own particular troughs.
Thankfully, the HRA appears to be run by people with rather more integrity than the normal politician.
richard
I have to say that I am mystified by Reet Hard’s and Galejade’s opinions. Winston, Kelly, etc were found guilty of providing inside information for financial gain. The rules as they exist are specific. No licensed individual can sell information which is not available otherwise for – curiously under the present rules – more than £100.<br>The fact that neither of the above individuals chose not to appeal against the HRA’s ruling says everthing. Bradley unfortunate to be found guilty? I don’t wish to sound rude Galejade but, well, words fail me.
The offence of selling inside information is very well defined under the HRA’s rules. What they seem to be trying to do is to close loopholes in the definition of what is inside information to make it harder for jocks, etc to profit illicitly.
There is no offence Reet Hard in connections knowing about the well being or otherwise (for example) of a runner. Nor is it an offence to communicate that information freely. Despite the posturings of John Blake, there is no bar on licensed individuals writing opinions for newspapers or talking to TV interviewers. The offence only kicks in when a licensed individual sells information which is not freely available for their own profit.
rivhard
AP is right in that the BAGS payment for an eight or more runner race is £4300, though I seem to remember that Northern Racing did a cheaper deal with the bookies as did Arena Leisure re bandit racing, the main reason they stopped bandit fixtures as they were not making enough profit.
It’s quite right to say that theoretically courses can race when thy want ‘cos of the OFT, but in practice it doesn’t work that way as fixtures still have to be sanctioned by the BHB and it’s up to the Levy Board to decide whether to fund them.
The basic point is that it is in the gift of the bookies whether they want to pay for picture rights for meetings beyond the minimum numbers AP itemised. If a track where they traditinally make less money than the average is staging a meet, they may decide not to show it in betting shops. As part of their defense against Turf TV they recently dropped Huntingdon just to make the point that they believe they run racing in the UK. Which , of course, to all intents and purposes, they do – at the moment at least.
However, the Tri-oply that run racing have at last got a challenge in Turf TV, which despite their blustering they are going to have to take as horseracing is still the main driver of getting punters into betting shops.
Be interesting to see how things develop.
richard
If I may say so EW, you ask a very pertinent question. I can only give you an answer based on my own experience and talking to other owners of my ilk, which is by and large owners of horses below listed/group level.<br>If you own a reasonable horse with some talent, the key to that horse running to the best of his or her ability is to get him or her in a race in which they can compete, to find the right level of race, at at a track which will suit, on the right ground with a jockey who is capable of riding the horse to suit the horse’s ability.
What the BHB did under the PDS regime was to construct a race program to make the maximum profit for bookmakers to fund the Pattern by introducing:
Non overlapping handicaps, eg 10lb ranges rather than 5Lbs
Limitimg the number of runners to 14 per race and 12 during the high summer.
Introducing bandit racing where the H/C mark would not be revealed – even to the owner or trainer.
The reult of this was that – leaving aside bandit racing, -if your horse was in the lower half of the handicap range, you couldn’t get the horse into a race.
This caused a major furore, never reported in the RP, but that’s to be expected. As a result, the BHB returned to 5lb ovelapping H/C bands after serious representations from trainers who managed to get over to the BHB that owners wouldn’t keep their horses in training if they couldn’t get a run. They also relaxed the 14lb handicap range, at least to the point where it was not obligatory.
The other considerstion is that bookies pay tracks according to the number of runners under the old SIS agreement. The most profitable races for off course bookies, ie the tri-opoly, are 8-12 runner handicaps on the A/W. Guess why Arena Leisure ordered the new stalls to 14 places when they could have been manufactured to any number.
Basically the BHB view has been that if you are daft enough to own a horse below Pattern level capability, we”ll construct a race program which means owners have to run their horses in whatever race the horse can be got into, rather than a race in which that horse can compete. Hence more profits for the bookies and funding for the Pattern.
I could go on, but the above situation has got to the point where it is untenable. Hence the review, under the new HRA, of the whole race program – instigated by the trainers, who well know that owners will not pay the very considerable expense of keepiing a horse in just to make money for the off course bookies.
Rather a rambling answer EW and there is much more to be said, but I hope that gives you, at least from my point of view, some kind of aswer to your question.
richard
Whilst Northern Racing certainly have invested in developing facilities at their tracks, not sure that has been done for the benefit of racing or racegoers. More likely it was done to develop revenues from other sources like conferences, exhibitions, functions, etc. Hence the virtual lack of a pre-parade ring at Chepstow and a rather large hike in restauraunt prices since they took over Yarmouth for example.
The money they have made from those developments has by and large not been put into racing. Certainly not into prize money as Yeats says.
According to press reports the Reubens already own 14% of Arena Leisure with speculation that they are looking to bid for that company or arrange a merger. In which case a very significant chunk of the racing program would be in the hands of property developers.
This cannot augur well for the future of racing in this country. One might be doing them an injustice, but given their investment history it seems unlikely they have bought Northern to invest in the racing side of the business.
richard
Whilst Northern Racing certainly have invested in developing facilities at their tracks, not sure that has been done for the benefit of racing or racegoers. More likely it was done to develop revenues from other sources like conferences, exhibitions, functions, etc. Hence the virtual lack of a pre-parade ring at Chepstow and a rather large hike in restauraunt prices since they took over Yarmouth for example.
The money they have made from those developments has by and large not been put into racing. Certainly not into prize money as Yeats says.
According to press reports the Reubens already own 14% of Arena Leisure with speculation that they are looking to bid for that company or arrange a merger. In which case a very significant chunk of the racing program would be in the hands of property developers.
This cannot augur well for the future of racing in this country. One might be doing them an injustice, but given their investment history it seems unlikely they have bought Northern to invest in the racing side of the business.
richard
A big difference between French and UK NH racing is that the French have a major program of races for three year olds compared to a limited one in this country. Either as a result of that, or because that’s just the way the French train, French horses are trained hard from an early age. If they are tough enough they survive the process, but whether or not that means they burn out earlier than GB trained horses, personally wouldn’t know.
Another factor is that not all French jumpers are pure thoroughbreds. Selle Francais horses are basically thoroughbreds crossed with regional breeds, I suppose to introduce hardiness. A number of French jumpers are Anglo-Arabs, Azertyuiop being a notable example of a succesful import to the UK from that breed – according to an article in the March issue of Pacemaker.
Suppose that if an owner/trainer has the money to buy a French bred horse that has survived their training process and shown ability on the track, that’s gives a reasonable chance he or she will do better in Novice, etc races than a tradititional GB store.And if he/she doesn’t burn out too quickly, go on to do well.
richard
Thank you for that response Zorro, and good luck in yours and the RPs endeavours.
Just to add to my previous posts, from my point of view, think this is a very serious subject. I do own racehorses who are always entered and run on merit -as are most horses Whether I would continue owning when my horses come to the end of their racing life if I thought that the odds are stacked against mine because of corrupt practices, I very much doubt. And I meet other owners who have similar views.
The other point which I think is equally important is racehorse welfare. I don’t know much about and don’t particularly follow USA racing. But reportedly there is a very high breakdown rate. Reports I’ve read put this down to the dirt racing surfaces, but then the polytrack purveyors would put out that kind of pr.
Bound to ask whether that high breakdown rate is in part due to horses running on drugs -some of which are legal in the USA . In this country if a horse goes wrong and finds running painful it is likely to stop or at least slow down. But if the pain, and the damage, is masked then he or she could keep going to the point of serious consequences.
So if the RP were to conduct a determined journalistic investigation, even if their findings couldn’t be published immediately, think that would be of great benefit to racing and to the RP.
richard
No Lincoln Duncan I have never applied for a job at the RP, nor MGN.
The point surely is that an address by the head of the HRA in a closed session of the NTF has to be big news. Something was going to be said of great importance – and indeed it was. That the HRA knows that some trainers are milkshaking horses is as big a story as the recent jockey goings on.
Yet the RP’s newshounds ignored the story. A story, the equivalent of which in any other sporting publication would have been the front page lead.
richard
