Mud pies

It seems that I owe the BHA an apology for having stated that its annual expenditure on the policing of racing is 25 million pounds. A letter from Nic Coward in today's Racing Post makes it clear that it is a lot less than that, but thankfully it also makes it clear that the source of any confusion was misinformation contained in the Racing Post's article on the subject. I'm glad about that, as I didn't think that I'd misread it. I suppose that I ought to have guessed that the article should have been treated with caution after I'd had such difficulty with the opening sentence, but I didn't; after all, everything one reads in the papers is true, isn't it?

Having thought that that original article was easy to understand and then finding that it had got things totally wrong, what are we now to make of the past couple of days of coverage of bookmaking firms moving their on-line businesses overseas? If you have found it possible to understand every sentence written on the subject in today's and yesterday's papers, then you are a better man (or woman) than I am. I think, though, that one thought which bobs up to the surface comes from a combination of both topics: whatever the figure spent on policing the sport actually is, it is still very high, and that alone is reason why there should be a moral obligation on any bookmaking firm to make at least some contribution towards the running of the sport, because the policing budget is more or less solely for the benefit of the betting industry, rather than of the participants. While one would rather not have to compete against the unchecked unscrupulousness of, say, jockeys who feel that it is acceptable to ring their punters between races before deciding whether or not they are going to try in the next race or of trainers who feel that it is acceptable to break the doping rules if they can get away with it, really it's not a matter of major concern to the participants. (To illustrate what I mean, I can say that I spend much more time worrying about training the horses under my care than I do agonizing about the questionable ethics of my competitors). Whereas to the betting industry it is vital that the sport be seen to be effectively policed, otherwise there would end up being no betting industry. So for any firm of bookmakers to say, "We wish that fortunes be spent on keeping the sport clean so that we can make our living from taking bets on it, but we don't worry about where this money comes from as long as it isn't from us" - which seems to be the view of Hills' chief Ralph Topping, to name but one - is really not good. And that's leaving aside the prize money issue, on which subject any bookmaker taking a similar view would effectively be saying, "We insist that the show goes on as and when we say so that we can make our living from it, but we feel no moral obligation to contribute to the costs of keeping the show on the road".

So that's my meander into racing politics. But before I leave, I'd have to say that I do have some sympathy with conventional bookmakers, because they have been totally disadvantaged by the arrival of Betfair, which is something which I still can't understand. It has always been the case since the legalizing of bookmaking that one has to apply for a license to make a book; and that making this book is a legalized business, with all the statutory financial responsibilities which come from running a business. That principal, I believe, is still meant to pertain, except that, thanks to Betfair, anyone can now make a book, with no license, no overheads, not much levy (I am aware that a percentage of the charge which Betfair makes as commission agent goes to the levy, but, although it's a hard one to calculate, I am sure that the contribution proportionately is signficantly lower than that made via traditional bookmakers), no gross profits tax, no corporation tax, no wages, no business rates, no anything virtually. This means that the unlicensed bookmakers on Betfair, whose only expenses are owning a computer and being connected to the internet, are always going to be able to undercut the proper bookmakers. This situation really is not right, so - while I don't agree with what they are doing - I can understand why bookmakers might be wanting to wriggle out of their financial responsibilities, when they are being heavily disadvantaged for conducting their business in an orthodox and proper manner. That, far more than any perceived integrity issue, is the biggest danger of Betfair, and it is one rarely mentioned, other than by Ralph Topping this week.


Oh dear. That was all rather complicated, wasn't it? Well, to go to less weighty matters, we had a lovely trip to Blakeney with Anthony and Finn. Although the weather is very up and down just now, Wednesday proved to be a lovely day, with enough haziness and cloud to ensure that sunburn wasn't a risk (even though we put sun cream on the boys, as Finn and Emma are here demonstrating), but high enough temperatures to mean that the seaside was a great place to be.
For those who don't know Blakeney, one can't actually see the sea as such from the village, as the quay is on a channel which meanders through the coastal wetlands between the solid land and the North Sea. The tide was out, which actually wasn't a bad thing, as it meant that it was very safe for boys and dogs (and adult) alike to play in the water as it wasn't deep. We all had a lovely day, during which the highlight for the boys, even more fun than catching crabs, was throwing mud-pies at me, as illustrated.


I don't know how we would describe the going in the channel at Blakeney when the tide is out (where Stan and Bean are seen walking the course) but experienced going observers might have enjoyed the official description from Haydock today: "6f - good to firm; 1m start to winning post - good to soft (soft in places); winning post to 1m start - good". We've had some wonderful going descriptions recently, but this goes straight to the top of the charts!

Finally, to end on the most serious note, we visited Camilla yesterday in Stoke Mandeville after dropping Anthony off. Camilla's injuries are very serious, but she is predictably facing her misfortune with admirable fortitude. Anyone who read James Willoughby's very moving description of her and her plight in Monday's Racing Post will appreciate what a special person she is; and, while Stoke Mandeville sadly welcomes numerous badly injured people, I doubt that it welcomes many who greet their fate with such stoicism and lack of self-pity. If the concept of the power of positive thinking holds good, she will be walking out of there before we know it. Pray God that that is the case.