Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Didn’t Mr O’Leary have a proviso in the offer that would reduce it by £10k if the horse turned up at his new yard with anything more than hoof luggage?
From my blog
David Muir, the RSPCA consultant who works closely with racing on behalf of the charity, has been in the news lately. David very kindly gave me twenty minutes of his time yesterday to record the following interview.
“Recent media coverage seems to have given the impression that excessive whip use has suddenly become an issue because of the Grand National and Jason Maguire’s suspension. The fact is the RSPCA and myself have been concerned about incorrect use of the whip in racing for a long time, and I have done a lot of work on the issue with a number of people.
“Although the RSPCA have always taken a pragmatic view on the whip, and indeed on racing, things are now getting out of hand. Unless something is done about excessive use of the whip, I can see it being banned completely and that is something I don’t want to see. The whip is needed for safety and discipline in races but how do you quantify encouragement? That’s the area that needs addressing.
“I’ve read Mark Johnston’s piece where he says that horses need to feel the whip as they tire towards the finish, for their own safety, to keep them running straight in a balanced fashion. To a degree Mark has a point but what you can’t do is defend the indefensible. If the application of pain is a necessary ingredient for racing, then I see racing going into an area that’s problematic.
“The whip is a work in progress. The one used now in racing bears no comparison whatever to the whip used five years ago. If I’d have hit myself hard on the back of the hand with a whip from five years ago, I’d break all four fingers. I could do it with the current whip and not even leave a mark.
“The current whip has a cylindrical core covered with foam. As it tapers down to the part which strikes the horse, it flattens out into a foam covered paddle which gives on contact with the horse and the reduction in pain, compared with the old whip, is dramatic.
“Used in the backhand style, the whip is perfectly acceptable, it’s when jockeys change to the forehand there is an implication that they want to apply as much pain as possible, and that’s where I fall out.
“We need to make sure that the correct balance is reached in whip design and in its use by jockeys. Doubling the foam-covering for example would make the whip useless for correction and discipline purposes. But used in the backhand position, I can never see a point in the future where I, or the RSPCA, would have a problem with the whip and that is the way I think the BHA will go with this.
“The only alternative I can see to that is that the whip is to be carried for safety and correction only, as in the current hands and heels races.
“The whole point of me, and the RSPCA working side by side with racing is to try to help understand both sides of the issues as we work to improve the welfare of horses. It’s alright standing outside and criticising racing but when you are working with racecourse management and the BHA, as we do, you see the problems they face.
“For example, I’m working closely at the moment on a hurdle design project with students at Southampton University, which is due to finish next month. For a year we’ve been looking at hurdle design. Along with four graduates, we’ve been examining design to see if we can improve safety in hurdling and reduce fatalities. I’m not in racing simply to criticise, I’m there to work with those involved to try to improve things”.
On the question of disqualification of a horse if its jockey is found guilty of improper use of the whip, David said:
“The Jockey should be disqualified, not the horse. Disqualifying the horse affects many other people; owners, trainers, punters, the whole system of betting. Just imagine a jockey who wants to actually lose a race, he knows excessive use will get the horse disqualified”.
I asked David if he was involved in the decision to ask jockeys to dismount immediately after the Grand National. He said:
“This is another issue that’s been taken completely out of context. I’ve been involved with the National now for fourteen years. When I first went there I fought like billy-o to get loads of water and I’ve got it now, about a hundred buckets and big tanks full of water with ice-bags in them.
“When the horses come in after four and a half miles, they’re very hot. Tim Morris (equine science and welfare director for the BHA) gave an instruction this year to jockeys to get off as soon they got in, get the saddles off and get water on the horses to cool them down. It wasn’t just the winner that got the treatment, I must have thrown water over twenty or thirty horses. It’s a welfare issue and a good thing for racing to do".
Asked about the image the hurried scrambling with water gave to the public, David said, “I think there was a major PA problem there. They should have explained what was going on. It’s a bit like when the screens go up on the course; everybody just assumes it’s a dead horse but that’s not always the case.
“Racing needs to take another step forward in explaining things. The whip is a classic example. Most people don’t know about the structure of a whip and how it behaves in use. We need to be more open and help people understand things much better".
We touched on the situation in Australia where the RSPCA were instrumental in getting NH racing banned in all but two states. David made the point that there’s almost no resemblance to jump racing there and in the UK, in the quality and type of horses used. He said:
“I can never see a situation where the RSPCA would support a call for the banning of National Hunt racing in Britain. Remember, what we are about is the prevention of cruelty and the definition of cruelty is ‘the gratuitous application of pain for the enjoyment of the person who’s doing it’. Now where in racing does the term ‘cruel’ fit? Tragic? Yes. Cruel? I can’t see that. The RSPCA does not try to justify the deaths of racehorses, but we will work tirelessly to reduce them. It’s a high risk sport and the RSPCA’s position in it is to help make it as risk-free as possible”.
On Towcester’s decision to have only ‘hands and heels’ races from October 5th onwards David said, "It’s a brave and positive way forward and I congratulate them on their courage and tenacity in the face of these recent concerns about whip use".
I’ve now changed my view due to one article I found while researching for an extensive blog piece which tries to cover all angles as well as offer a one-click poll on the issue to voters.
Here’s an extract from that blog article, the one which helped change my opinion.
So will the BHA take David Ashforth’s line? Should the whip be banned as a means of ‘encouragement’? They say they will consult widely. Here is the view of one, highly experienced and vastly well qualified person they will definitely consult (the words in bold type are mine):
“The whip is often, as is recognised in the rules of racing, required to discipline horses, to prevent interference between horses in a race and, to some extent, to aid steering. But, to my mind, it has a far more important function in racing: to keep a horse balanced and, ultimately,
reduce the risk of serious injury
even when it is getting tired towards the end of the race.
“In breeding horses to race over centuries we have selected for, and greatly enhanced, the flight response which is inherent in all horses. That response, which is driven by chemicals in the body such as adrenalin and endorphins, can be initiated quite easily in a fit, trained, racehorse by the very excitement of being at the races but it must be maintained throughout the race.
“There are many physiological changes taking place as part of the flight response and, together, they ensure that the mechanical components of the body are fuelled to capacity and can work up to maximum output but with natural limiters in place to try to ensure that the body is not pushed to breaking point.
“However, as the horse tires, many components of that physiological response wear off. The excitement wanes, the stride shortens and the weight distribution alters with the head and neck lowering and more weight being thrown onto the vulnerable front limbs. At this point,
it is in the best interests of the horse
to reinforce the flight response and get the horse to the end of the race in a fully alert state. The strokes of the whip, which cause no lasting damage to an animal of that size, initiate a new ‘injection’ of adrenalin and endorphins.
“Those who have heard this argument from me before will know that I like to compare this tiring state with a boxer about to come out for the last round of a gruelling fight. The jockey’s use of the stick is akin to the seconds slapping their man’s cheek and telling him to get his wits about him, keep his chin in, and look after himself.
“I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable about horses racing without the aid of the stick”.
Should the BHA move toward radical changes in the whip rules, they risk losing their most recently appointed director, the author of the above words, leading trainer and experienced vet, Mark Johnston.
That extract from Mr Johnston’s blog article, was a revelation to me. If his conclusions were endorsed by, for example, the BHA’s equine science and welfare director Tim Morris, and, crucially, an equine specialist from the RSPCA, then the whole game changes. The welfare of the horse
is improved
by the use of the whip in a finish.
Bring on the fat lady?
Full article here http://wp.me/1o7dN
Joe
As usual, the "debate" once opened degenerates into the Ban Merchants accusing the rest of being
"dinosaurs"
(
Stilvi
) or
"quaintly irrelevant"
(
Venusian
), whilst making their own assertions about Public Opinion on the basis of hand-picked anecdotal evidence and vague, personal feelings.
Can any of these self-styled "reformers" explain why hardly anyone in France, Ireland or the USA is conscience-stricken about the matter? Rules against racetrack cruelty exist in all these places, and that suffices them. It is tempting to conclude that it is the "reformers" themselves, with their attitude of British Moral Superiority, who offer the "quaint irrelevance" here, in the context of the wider, civilised world which has more important moral questions to think about.
Drone
is spot on to praise the RSPCA’s David Muir: his fairness, rationality and political skill are holding the line in a country where even the Racing Post feels it must shamefully skew public opinion, completely ignoring the expressed viewpoint of the vast majority of its own readers – the Punting Public – whilst bending over backwards to give space to the Ban Merchants.
This "debate", in short, is peculiarly British – and, I suspect, peculiarly urban. No wonder the French and Irish country crowds are apt to smile and shake their heads in bafflement, at the sight of our UK Racing Community tearing itself into tatters over such quaint, peripheral questions.
A little unfair I think to accuse those you disagree with as architects of accusatory language when you later describe the RP’s stance as shameful.
Joe
The use of the stick, the technology, the rules, training and guidelines around the stick have all been revisited frequently over the last few decades with lots of changes already made.
Sean, that indicates to me that its broke and they keep trying, unsuccessfully, to fix it.
I’m not for a complete ban but you mention in another post that horses don’t love it and that’s not what they are raced for.
The trouble is 90% of ‘racing’s’ immediate post – GN defence was that ‘The horses love it – they’re bred for just this over millennia; if they didn’t like it they wouldn’t do it, etc etc"
The use of the stick in a finish is to remind them that they really love it then?
I’m with you on your core point that public reaction should be properly tested, but the fact that a number of fairly hard-bitten racing pros – who do not put pen to paper without considerable reflection – are now moving toward the banning lobby is highly significant in my opinion.
you would seriously wonder why this subject is still being debated.
Unfortunately, I suspect that isn’t going to happen and we will see a continuation of the dinosaur mentality.
I too continually wonder that the subject is still being debated in this country, when the majority of the rest of the world’s racing nation don’t give two hoots about the matter, and – more to the point – the RSPCA (who might be considered the experts in
realpolitik
as well as animal welfare) are happy with the rules as they’ve been evolved.
Pinza, the rest of the world’s racing nations don’t count; much to the amusement of many ‘foreigners’ few cultures are as as fond of their ‘domestic’ animals as the British.
Also, I wouldn’t count on the future support of the RSPCA. Here’s their pre-GN release:
Wednesday 6 April 2011
The RSPCA is urging jockeys not to overuse the whip nor force tired horses to complete a race at this year’s Grand National as it increases the risk of injury and fatalities.Four horses died during last year’s three-day race meeting, compared to five in 2009. This was despite the course managers’ efforts to produce the best going possible.
We continue to be concerned about misuse of the whip, particularly during and after the last jump of the Grand National.
RSPCA equine consultant David Muir said: “Jockeys need to consider their responsibilities in relation to the safety and welfare of the horse, with all whip use being strictly within the rules.
They should not force tired horses to continue to race just for the sake of finishing the course as this greatly increases the risk of serious injury to both horse and rider.
And their post-race release:
Statement following the deaths of two horses in the Grand National at the weekend.
An RSPCA spokesman said:
We are extremely saddened by the deaths of two racehorses in the Grand National. We will look very closely at the race footage, and at what happened to these horses, to see if their deaths could have been avoided.The death of a horse at any race meeting is never justifiable and it is crucial that, wherever possible, steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring.
The Grand National is the most testing of races and due to the number of runners, the distance of the race and the number and variety of obstacles there is a higher risk to horses.
The RSPCA will continue to have a close dialogue with the racecourse’s management and will address any concerns.
Background information
We urged jockeys not to overuse the whip or force tired horses to complete a race at this year’s Grand National as it increases the risk of injury and fatalities.
Four horses died during last year’s three-day race meeting, compared to five in 2009. This was despite the course manager’s efforts to produce the best going possible.
We continue to be concerned about misuse of the whip, particularly during and after the last jump of the Grand National.
There are numerous reports online and in the press of ‘family members’ watching the National and commenting on Jason Maguire’s whip use before mentioning the fallers.
Racing should not assume that because there is no day-to-day underlying public groundswell of anti-whip feeling that the public is untroubled by it. They are simply not exposed to it in the graphic way they were in the National.
They don’t watch TV racing, other than the GN, and those who go racing occasionally only see whip use from the stands – slowmo close-ups change the whole game as we saw at Aintree.
A few commenting also raised the non-welfare question – why was that horse allowed to keep the race when the jockey broke the rules?
It’s all very well to say the current rules are fine but we know those rules are ignored when the blood is up and the money down.
The whip is needed for safety – I agree. But can we really expect to grow our audience when allowing it to be used to stimulate effort through fear?
I’ve no doubt that its use for ‘encouragement’ will be banned, probably sooner rather than later.
Tuffers, I’ve enjoyed the debate and, for my part, will agree to disagree.
The proof of the pudding will eventually out,and,if we are still around, we shall see.
Good luck
Joe
Steeps you claim;
47% of the Betting Industy’s profit last year came from FOTBs
Have you got a source for this, please.
I think it was in the January or February edition of Betting Business, the monthly industry mag. – And I should, of course have said FOBT and not FOTB
Also when you say
Racing’s share of Betting has fallen from the days of Extel (circa 20-25 years ago) from 80% to 50%
What are the total figures (size of total betting market say 1985 and 2011) you are taking those %’s from?
I don’t know offhand (it was above 80% and is now below 50%) – I could find out with some research but it wouldn’t alter the point of the market-share loss. No matter how much the market has grown, a progressive loss of share will kill your business in the end.
Tuffers, every other sport in the country doesn’t take place 7 days a week throughout the year.
I don’t see how that makes a difference. It just means racing has more opportunities to generate income from its activities.
People free to go racing Monday to Friday tend not to have much disposable income
Other than concerts, there’s little more racing can do utilise the land.
Well that’s your opinion but I have to disagree with your assessment. The idea that the course interior can be used for no other purpose whatsoever is ludicrous.
Fair point – I should have said profitably to utilise the land
These courses have a huge catchment to draw from and, believe it or not, some decent brains and marketing budgets, yet they still make a relatively paltry amount from non-racing activities. So what chance do the rural courses have?
I think the fact that they make so little from non racing activities shows that the brains aren’t good enough.
Well almost all of them offer conference/banqueting/weddings/exhibitions: a few have golf courses, some have caravan sites. What would you add to the mix?
The trouble with tariffs (apart from the fact that they put huge pressure on the smaller courses) is that the Horsemen’s members will start budgeting for them and once the media rights cash dries up there will be an almighty crash.
The trouble with not having tariffs is that you will end up with lots of races and no horses to run in them.
And the trouble with having tariffs is that you will end up with lots of horses and no races to run them in
I admire your optimism in believing that with hard work and application racecourses will survive without bookmaker-generated income; the reality is that it simply will not happen.
Your opinion rather than fact of course. I disagree fundamentally with your opinion based as it is on the belief that income from bookmakers is the only way racing can survive.
It is my opinion but there is plenty of evidence to support it: racing might survive without it but not in its current structure
Racing’s only potentially successful strategy is to develop the market – bring in new customers and encourage betting on the sport. In the 1960s there were almost 17,000 betting shops in Britain. The number today is half that – racing has lost 50% of its key product (betting) distribution channel over the years.
I agree that the market needs to be developed but I don’t see how the number of betting shops is relevant when some of the strategies open to racing include managing on course betting by the racecourses themselves.
On course betting is a tiny fraction of off-course and, bar the festivals,insignificant in comparison. If 20,000 betting shops were open selling racing’s betting product to customers, surely that makes more commercial sense than having 10,000 open?
The media rights costs it now demands, mean a further narrowing of that channel or driving its product online where levy can be avoided. One of Racing’s main aims should be to make it as cheap and easy as possible to run a UK betting shop, because that’s the only guaranteed place it will get a return.
I completely disagree. As I’ve said before, any strategy based on reliance on income from bookmakers is doomed to fail.
How then do you explain your enthusiasm for the tariffs strategy? The money ‘raised’ by tariffs comes mainly from bookmakers’ media rights payments
If racing truly believes bookmakers are raking in cash and paying far too little back, a real radical move would be to set up their own bookmaking division and start opening hundreds of shops.
Now that would be an interesting strategy.
Not necessary. On course betting should be the priority followed by the establishment of a nationwide pool betting operation. The failure to secure ownership of the Tote by a racing industry body is an absolute travesty but that shouldn’t stop racing attempting to run its own Pari Mutuel style operation.
Racing already has its on-course and nationwide pool betting operation, and has had for decades – the Tote. Pool betting in its current format holds little appeal for UK punters compared with fixed odds. How will it suddenly transform the fortunes of racing if run ‘directly’ by racing?
Drone, I haven’t seen York’s accounts but I’d be surprised if their non-racing business contributes much more than 10% to annual profits.
Perhaps someone on the forum can give us a more accurate figure? If not, I will try to find out as a matter of interest.
Tuffers, every other sport in the country doesn’t take place 7 days a week throughout the year.
Other than concerts, there’s little more racing can do utilise the land. Aintree covers 270 acres: it has a golf course, equestrian centre, museum,and a reasonable conference and banqueting business. But I believe that 93% of its income is earned over the GN meeting.
Just 6 miles north of the city centre, Aintree struggles to make much money from its supporting niches, as do a few other ‘City/Town-based’ courses like Musselburgh, Nottingham, Chester, Hamilton, York.
These courses have a huge catchment to draw from and, believe it or not, some decent brains and marketing budgets, yet they still make a relatively paltry amount from non-racing activities. So what chance do the rural courses have?
The trouble with tariffs (apart from the fact that they put huge pressure on the smaller courses) is that the Horsemen’s members will start budgeting for them and once the media rights cash dries up there will be an almighty crash.
I admire your optimism in believing that with hard work and application racecourses will survive without bookmaker-generated income; the reality is that it simply will not happen.
Racing’s only potentially successful strategy is to develop the market – bring in new customers and encourage betting on the sport. In the 1960s there were almost 17,000 betting shops in Britain. The number today is half that – racing has lost 50% of its key product (betting) distribution channel over the years.
The media rights costs it now demands, mean a further narrowing of that channel or driving its product online where levy can be avoided. One of Racing’s main aims should be to make it as cheap and easy as possible to run a UK betting shop, because that’s the only guaranteed place it will get a return.
If racing truly believes bookmakers are raking in cash and paying far too little back, a real radical move would be to set up their own bookmaking division and start opening hundreds of shops.
Now that would be an interesting strategy.
I’m planning a detailed blog post on this over the next week or two but I’d like to set some things straight here.
I am not against increased prize money in any way so long as it’s achieved without excessively damaging the current fabric of racing (some changes are inevitable).
Racing was my first love, and has remained so. I’ve had the good fortune to work in several areas of it: I have done the coalface stuff as a betting shop manager in my younger days. I was marketing manager at Aintree for 4 years so I know the racecourse side and the problems they face.
I spent 7 years with SiS, so I’m familiar with the broadcasting aspect. And I spent 5 years on the board of Tote Bookmakers as commercial director.
I’ve dabbled in journalism having published a few articles in the old Sporting Life. I mention all this to let you know I have a fair bit of experience of the varied points of view in the industry.
Most of the current problems racing faces stem from the BHA having no control of industry media rights. Soccer is a very valuable sport from a media rights viewpoint, not least because the rights are negotiated by the ruling bodies rather than individual clubs.
Racing’s media income will never reach soccer levels as it is miles below it in the popularity index. But racing could have a much healthier long-term future if the BHA had sole control of media rights. Its secret would be to
charge less for them
to keep the maximum number of off-course bookmakers in business.
As it stands, racecourses – as individual entities, or groups like Northern and Arena – are revelling in a free-for-all. Do you seriously believe Northern and Arena would be in this business if they could not negotiate their own media rights?
When I was at Aintree in the mid ‘90s, only 12 racecourses were making an operating profit. Without the Levy, 47 racecourses would have been in deep trouble and would probably have closed.
I suspect that quite a few more racecourses could now survive without the Levy, but I doubt it is more than 50% of the current 60.
Prior to the advent of SiS, in the old Extel days, off course bookmakers paid for the blower commentary and wall sheets from Jackson & Lowe; their running costs for feeding info to customers would be minimal compared with today.
Back then, a shop taking £1m a year was a jewel in the crown, Two weeks ago I spoke to the MD of a prominent Midlands chain of independents who sent me his figures for a shop taking £1m a year – he closed it shortly afterwards as it was making a loss.
A bookmaker setting up today needs to find £14,000 PA for SiS and another £7,000, approximately, for Turf Tv. An independent also needs to pay the Gambling Commission about £1,700 a year for an operating license (The multiples pay about £250 a shop due to the highly inequitable Gambling Commission fee structure).
On top of these costs, add the normal operating expenses for a retail business – a business, remember, that cannot raise its prices; a business whose ‘natural’ margins have been seriously eroded by activity on the exchanges.
I met a long-established independent bookmaker a couple of months back who asked me if I knew of anyone who would take the keys to his eleven shops – at no cost. Celtic Bookmakers – a 60 shop chain in Ireland recently went bust. Hundreds of independents are closing each year.
The elimination, in the Gambling Act, of the demand criteria (new license applicants within a quarter mile of an existing shop had to prove that there was unmet demand in the area), has left independents as shrews in full view of the hovering hawks that are the ‘majors’.
Next time you’re in a town centre, take a look at how many major bookmakers are now, literally, next door to each other. Economies of scale allow them to run at tiny margins, FOBTs being the engine that keeps them ticking over (47% of the betting industry’s profits last year came from FOBT machines) yes, 47%.
When Extel were the sole broadcasters, racing’s share of the betting market was above 80%. Today it is below 50% and falling. The further it falls, the more the bookmakers celebrate because the nearer they come to being able to dispense with the costs of buying picture rights from racecourses.
Howard Chisholm runs 49 shops in the North east of England. His is a family company of more than 50 years’ standing. (Buying a 50th shop would push him into the next level of the daft Gambling Commission fees structure).
Mr Chisholm has never subscribed to Turf Tv. His business has not suffered though he has had to increase his concessions to keep punters, but those concessions are nowhere near as expensive as paying AMRAC £350,000 per annum for pictures.
Mr Chisholm is most astute. His estate is one of the few owned by independents that will probably survive. But his policy should teach racing two significant lessons:
1 A well-run off-course bookmaking business can survive without paying for pictures from the ‘major’ racecourses.
2 The large corporations will not be blind to that fact.Bookmakers do not need live pictures from racecourses to survive; all they need is a level playing field. Given the choice, I have no doubts at all that every single company would rewind to 1987 and happily resume with audio-commentaries from Extel at a paltry price.
So, independents are steadily closing. The big boys are slowly but surely taking the place of the independents. The stronger the big bookmakers grow, the weaker racing’s position becomes. I’d be the last person to suggest that a cartel might eventually be formed, but if half a dozen companies control 99% of the country’s betting shops, racing’s negotiating position will be substantially weakened.
Coral broke ranks and signed for Turf Tv just before the deadline (a deadline for Turf Tv partners AMRAC too – who were in dire trouble but tempted Coral with an excellent deal). Coral’s rivals were forced to follow, but do not assume that a reverse of the situation cannot happen – Howard Chisholm has proved there is life, and profits, without Turf Tv.
Nor should racing, or bookmakers, forget the singular basket of eggs that hosts almost half bookmakers profits. Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) are by no means a stable income source. The government has its beady tax eye on them as does the problem-gambling lobby.
Two years ago I asked the CEO of one of the major chains what would happen if FOBTs were abolished; “We’d close 80% of our shops” was the answer.
Tuffers, and many others believe that racing needs to find a funding mechanism other than the Levy; media rights is not that mechanism. Media rights is the Levy in fancy dress – the bookies still pay the bills.
Grand plans for income from sports betting rights (SBR) on racing will simply not happen. Bookmakers will stop accepting bets on horse racing rather than pay for SBR for the sport because to do so would be an implicit admission that all the sports they bet on are also entitled to a payment.
Bookmakers’ net profit is currently around the 2% to 3% mark. Add the costs of SBR for all sports and wave goodbye to High St betting shops. And good luck with getting a payment from the offshore online guys.
Alan Morcombe, CEO of the Horsemen’s Group, did not cover himself in glory in his previous business venture with Alphameric. Global businessman and highly respected judge Joe Lewis tried to unseat Mr Morcombe more than once, before the Alphameric CEO slipped away quietly having used his own 1% shareholding in the company to engineer his skin-of the-teeth survival in JL’s final coup attempt.
Mr Morcombe is credited with setting up AMRAC and driving Turf Tv – in fact the project was the brainchild of Alphameric’s Development Director, the very able Phil Siers – now retail MD at rival SiS.
After speaking at a seminar at the Betting Show some time back, Mr Morcombe’s first comment to a group of others (I was one of them) was “I thought I was pretty good in there, what do you think?” Read into that what you will. (Take a look at the stock market price performance of Alphameric during his tenure, prior to the AMRAC deal).
His ‘leadership’ of the Horsemen will, I believe, end in disaster. This tariff idea is a typically ill-thought-out practical and PR disaster which was driven through without detailed consultation with racecourses, or, more importantly, any consideration for the potential fallout from such a scheme.
It’s already proved a patchwork of back-pedalling and individual interpretation which should be a considerable embarrassment to HG members, let alone racing.
I’m all for mavericks in business; but mavericks almost always need an experieved hand who can lasso their gung-ho, heads-down-and-charge ferocity.
In conclusion, like it or not, bookmakers pay to keep racing alive as we know it – through media rights or Levy. They will not accept a sports betting rights structure. Those owners with horses talented enough to win at the top tracks should celebrate the Horsemen’s policy. The remainder might want to consider mid to long-term arrangements for re-homing or slaughter.
Joe,
Can I ask what you think an owner like Tuffers (who has horses that are winning this year but he is still struggling to cover his expenses) should do?
Imo he either:
1) Shuts up and accepts the status quo
2) Supports the tariff and boycotts those races that don’t meet it
3) Decides enough is enough and spends his leisure pound elsewhere.Or is there an alternative that I’ve missed?
No doubt there will be mistakes made and divisions re the tariff but at least it is an attempt to redress the balance and give owners, trainers and their staff a better return. If some races fall by the wayside does that not tell it’s own story about how attractive they are to O&T’s?
I’ve said it previously: Redistribute some of the prize money from the top tier to the middle to lower tiers.
One final point, if bookmakers wish to continue to push for dross meetings like we’ve seen on the a/w why should owners and trainers subsidise these meetings. Again redistribution of the funds to make the racing more attractive to all stakeholders is the only way forward or these meetings will slowly but surely disppear in any case.
I believe the first thing owners should do is find themselves representatives who have a coherent and plausible long term strategy which does not alienate the public and the theatres in which their horses ply their trade.
There seems to be some natural, unreasoned, assumption that if pressure is put on courses, the shockwave will eventually hit the off-course bookmakers.
The reality is that hundreds of betting shops are closing each year (others are opening but most are owned by the big four whose economies of scale, allied to the changes in the ‘demand’ criteria brought about by the Gambling Act 2005 (in force from September 07) allow them to dart in and bite from a ‘market-cake’ which is getting no bigger.
Bookmakers have been ‘educating’ punters in the charms of FOBTs and virtual racing in preparation for racing self-immolating. Courses will close and will not be missed by the bookies (no Levy to pay, no media rights for pics – huge cost savings = massive rise in profits: happy days).
Fewer courses mean fewer opportunities for horses to run and, naturally, further reductions in Levy. Media rights values will drop too as courses close meaning less prize money while, at the same time the Horsemen will be under pressure to ‘build on the success of their tariff policy’ by increasing tariffs further, which will exacerbate the vicious circle.
Don’t the Horsemen realise that the bookies are p1ssing themselves at this self-righteous campaign which is cannibalising the future?
When racing is dead, betting shops will still be full of punters – they might be talking about the good old days – but they’ll be betting on something else.
RIP the tariffs or RIP racing – take your pick.
In Mark’s position, I’d beware Greeks bearing gifts.
He’ll be gone by the end of the Flat.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
If this was an Auction, Mr. Dunlop would be admitting to running a Ring, and be liable to a criminal prosecution. Interesting legal position, when the other trainers have denied it.
Hence the rapid volte-face today. How much more ducking and diving is there going to be before the tariff lies in tatters?
Ill-conceived, poorly executed, inconsistent: a strategy it most definitely is not. It’s a ransom heist where the perps keep changing the rules.
Some might say they are cheating racegoers of value and the Levy of cash. And wasn’t somebody lying over the Leicester walkover?
Mr Balding and Mr Beckett claim today they engaged their runners ‘only in error’.
Yesterday’s quote from Mr Dunlop?
"We all have our views regarding the tariffs and I very much support them," said Dunlop.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
