If there's one thing which really pisses off racing's professionals, it is the fact that the authorities are so quick to dish out stern punishments for minor misdemeanours (such as the trigger for my most recent three-figure fine, which came from my having presented a horse at the races whose vaccination records were out of order by the fact that a vaccination which should have come within 215 days of the previous one had actually come 217 days after the previous one, the result of an innocent miscalculation on my part - so that's the type of crime and punishment we're dealing with) while making far worse blunders themselves. This a particularly appropriate observation this week, which has been one of the most blunder-strewn weeks in the history of racing administration and which has been highlighted not by a tremendous day of racing at Ascot, as should have been the case, but by the fact that the Ascot stewards were obliged to give Christophe Soumillon what I believe amounts to easily the highest fine ever issued by the British authorities, and for a virtually non-existent offence.
I was in the At The Races studio when the new whip rules were announced, and I had a minute or so to digest them before giving my views. At first glance, they appeared sensible and I said as such on the TV. However, a more detailed perusal has revealed a major flaw in them. I welcomed the new rules for their seeming clarity, their black-and-white lack of grey areas. However, it turns out that for those trying to adhere to them, their clarity is much less easy to establish. While I stick to my basic precept that it is up to the competitors to learn the rules and play by them, it transpires that playing
by this new rule is easier said than done. The problem comes that not only is there a maximum number of strokes per race, but there is also a maximum number in the last furlong. So what this means is that a jockey has to start counting when he hits the horse for the first time, but then has to start another count as he passes the furlong pole, the problem being that he has to recalculate the total below which he has to keep on this second count, a total which will vary dependent on how many times he has hit the horse thus far. There is a further complication that knowing exactly when to start this second count is not
easy: if he is on the rail it should be fairly straightforward, but if he is out in the middle of the track with a bunch of horses between him and the furlong pole, knowing the exact split second in which he passes the furlong pole is difficult. The stewards, in establishing whether a stroke was applied a metre before the furlong pole or a metre after it, have the benefit of video replays, repeated as often as they wish and run in slow-motion if desired, while the jockey only has one stab at it, in real time and in the heat of battle. Any reflection on the subject at all makes it clear that what the rider is being asked to do is very much easier said than done.
The upshot of this - which would have been apparent in advance as an inevitable consequence of the new legislation to anyone who had given any thought to the subject - is that jockeys who are riding responsibly and clearly making a serious effort to stick to the new rules are copping serious punishments. And they are understandably really pissed off by this. Richard Hughes, while riding within both the spirit and the letter of the law in every other respect, has fallen foul of the final-furlong booby-trap on two occasions, thus earning 15 days of suspensions. Hughes is one of the sport's greatest ambassadors (as anyone who has read his weekly Racing Post column will know), is a wonderfully sympathetic rider, a true horseman and a perfect role model for any budding jockey - and yet he has felt obliged to surrender his riding license, feeling that the regime as it stands is one under which he has no wish to ply his trade. That fact alone should cause some serious soul-searching among those responsible for the creation of this ill-thought-out rule.
This lamentable situation would be bad enough had it happened in just any old week. But it hasn't: it has happened in the week of QIPCO Champion Day, the day for which the racing calendar has been restructured with the aim of making a flagship day for racing to take us from oblivion onto the front pages and into the mainstream of public consciousness. Well, we've got there alright, but no thanks to Champions' Day. In fact, the timing of the introduction of the new rules has totally undermined Champions' Day: we're on the front pages but Champions' Day isn't, and we aren't there for hosting a wonderful sporting event, but for being a sport in disarray. To give you an example of what I mean, I was contacted today by a woman called Laura Makin-Isherwood, a producer with Anglia TV. Her company is set to run a feature on racing on Monday. This is great, you might feel, just what Champions' Day was meant to achieve: two days after Champions' Day and there's going to be a racing slot on the TV news. The only problem, of course, is that the programme isn't going to be about Champions' Day; it's going to be about the debacle of the new whip rules.
Wait, though - it gets worse. Champions' Day, unfortunately, probably will feature on the show after all. Not, though, for its sporting glory, but for the fact that Christophe Soumillon picked up a five-day ban (at a time when he is contention for the French jockeys' premiership) and copped what amounts to a fine of nearly 50,000 pounds (and, before you ask, I have not added three extra zeroes onto that figure - he has forfeited his percentage for riding the winner, which is quite a forfeit as the race was the most valuable ever run in Britain) for trying and narrowly failing to stick to the new rules. His ride
on Cirrus Des Aigles to win the Champion Stakes was a beauty. He was clearly trying to use the whip sparingly, hitting the horse six times. The first of these, as inspection of video replays revealed, came a couple of metres after the furlong pole. Had it come a couple of metres earlier, he would have been innocent; as it was, he was guilty, so has picked up a suspension which might cost him the French jockeys' championship plus what amounts to a colossal fine.
His interview on ATR after the race was admirably measured, in which he explained that he'd believed that he had ridden within the rules, but because he'd had So You Think, a massive horse, on his inner and because there were so many QIPCO advertising hoardings along the rails, and because he was riding at a track which he doesn't visit very often, he had misjudged exactly where the furlong pole was. He didn't rant and rave, and when he said, "I am embarrassed for British racing", he wasn't just striking out in petulance because he had been punished; he was echoing the opinions of anyone who cares for our sport. In one stroke, I'm afraid, we have been made the racing equivalent of some banana republic where no one would go because you'd be frightened that if you inadvertently stepped out of line, the cops would lock you up and throw away the key. What foreign sportsmen would come here if that's the potential welcome that awaits? What future for the Shergar Cup, for instance?
I'd have to say, though, in defence of our rulers that they aren't guilty of all the crimes with which they have been charged. Bruce Millington in the Racing Post today was unduly harsh on Paul Roy. At least Paul Roy, having realised that the BHA which he rules has made a blunder, has had the humility to admit the possibility that he might be in the wrong, and has ordered that the case be re-opened, which shows an admirable ability to eat humble pie - and yet Bruce Millington is slating him for it. Furthermore, Millington has accused the BHA of inconsistency in that its veterinary adviser Tim Morris had said that the rules would not be reviewed one day and that Paul Roy had the next day said that they would; that, though, is not a case of
inconsistency as I can't see that the whip rules should have anything to do with Tim Morris, whose brief is equine welfare. The whip rules, of course, have nothing to do with equine welfare at all, but are a PR exercise, designed not for the horses' benefit but to ensure that the man who has alighted from the Clapham omnibus, when he gets home and switches on his TV, doesn't find the sight of racing off-putting. And don't you feel sorry for the Ascot stewards, who were put in an impossible position? Either fail in their duty to implement the rules, or bring racing into disrepute by smacking an absurdly over-the-top punishment on a visiting foreigner, thus bringing international embarrassment to British racing. That would have been a Hobson's choice which I wouldn't have wished on any steward.
However, it's not all bad. The weather's been lovely. When that wonderful spell of glorious weather ended early last week, I thought that we would have had our lot until the second quarter of next year. Not so: the past couple of days have been heavenly. Of course, this far into October means that clear skies brought our first ground frost of the autumn last night, but that was a very small price to pay for wonderful days on either side of that night. I went to Cheltenham yesterday where we saw a sun-beaten Prestbury Park which you'd never expect to find on any day when it was hosting National Hunt racing. The drawback, of course, was that the ground was extremely fast, much faster than I would have expected. It was considerably quicker
than it had been at Huntingdon (which had been accurately described as good to firm, good in places) four days previously, and despite walking all the way around I didn't find any of the good patches which supposedly existed - but I judged it to be safe enough so Alcalde ran, and ran well too, even if the lightning fast conditions probably meant that the two miles might not have been enough of a test of stamina for him. I've been to Cheltenham Festivals and found that the supposedly good ground has been what I'd call good to soft, so I was rather taken aback yesterday; and there would certainly be an outcry if they were ever to produce ground as firm as it was yesterday for the Festival. But no harm was done, and the result was that some of Alcalde's owners and his trainer were able to enjoy a heavenly day at the home of steeplechasing, some of the photographs of which adorn this chapter - as do some taken today of scenes on the Severals and the Heath, in the yard and on the market place, where shoppers were treated to a display of falcons and owls. I loved that, and so would Alan Partridge had he been there too.
If there's one thing which really pisses off racing's professionals, it is the fact that the authorities are so quick to dish out stern punishments for minor misdemeanours (such as the trigger for my most recent three-figure fine, which came from my having presented a horse at the races whose vaccination records were out of order by the fact that a vaccination which should have come within 215 days of the previous one had actually come 217 days after the previous one, the result of an innocent miscalculation on my part - so that's the type of crime and punishment we're dealing with) while making far worse blunders themselves. This a particularly appropriate observation this week, which has been one of the most blunder-strewn weeks in the history of racing administration and which has been highlighted not by a tremendous day of racing at Ascot, as should have been the case, but by the fact that the Ascot stewards were obliged to give Christophe Soumillon what I believe amounts to easily the highest fine ever issued by the British authorities, and for a virtually non-existent offence.
I was in the At The Races studio when the new whip rules were announced, and I had a minute or so to digest them before giving my views. At first glance, they appeared sensible and I said as such on the TV. However, a more detailed perusal has revealed a major flaw in them. I welcomed the new rules for their seeming clarity, their black-and-white lack of grey areas. However, it turns out that for those trying to adhere to them, their clarity is much less easy to establish. While I stick to my basic precept that it is up to the competitors to learn the rules and play by them, it transpires that playing
by this new rule is easier said than done. The problem comes that not only is there a maximum number of strokes per race, but there is also a maximum number in the last furlong. So what this means is that a jockey has to start counting when he hits the horse for the first time, but then has to start another count as he passes the furlong pole, the problem being that he has to recalculate the total below which he has to keep on this second count, a total which will vary dependent on how many times he has hit the horse thus far. There is a further complication that knowing exactly when to start this second count is not
easy: if he is on the rail it should be fairly straightforward, but if he is out in the middle of the track with a bunch of horses between him and the furlong pole, knowing the exact split second in which he passes the furlong pole is difficult. The stewards, in establishing whether a stroke was applied a metre before the furlong pole or a metre after it, have the benefit of video replays, repeated as often as they wish and run in slow-motion if desired, while the jockey only has one stab at it, in real time and in the heat of battle. Any reflection on the subject at all makes it clear that what the rider is being asked to do is very much easier said than done.
The upshot of this - which would have been apparent in advance as an inevitable consequence of the new legislation to anyone who had given any thought to the subject - is that jockeys who are riding responsibly and clearly making a serious effort to stick to the new rules are copping serious punishments. And they are understandably really pissed off by this. Richard Hughes, while riding within both the spirit and the letter of the law in every other respect, has fallen foul of the final-furlong booby-trap on two occasions, thus earning 15 days of suspensions. Hughes is one of the sport's greatest ambassadors (as anyone who has read his weekly Racing Post column will know), is a wonderfully sympathetic rider, a true horseman and a perfect role model for any budding jockey - and yet he has felt obliged to surrender his riding license, feeling that the regime as it stands is one under which he has no wish to ply his trade. That fact alone should cause some serious soul-searching among those responsible for the creation of this ill-thought-out rule.
This lamentable situation would be bad enough had it happened in just any old week. But it hasn't: it has happened in the week of QIPCO Champion Day, the day for which the racing calendar has been restructured with the aim of making a flagship day for racing to take us from oblivion onto the front pages and into the mainstream of public consciousness. Well, we've got there alright, but no thanks to Champions' Day. In fact, the timing of the introduction of the new rules has totally undermined Champions' Day: we're on the front pages but Champions' Day isn't, and we aren't there for hosting a wonderful sporting event, but for being a sport in disarray. To give you an example of what I mean, I was contacted today by a woman called Laura Makin-Isherwood, a producer with Anglia TV. Her company is set to run a feature on racing on Monday. This is great, you might feel, just what Champions' Day was meant to achieve: two days after Champions' Day and there's going to be a racing slot on the TV news. The only problem, of course, is that the programme isn't going to be about Champions' Day; it's going to be about the debacle of the new whip rules.
Wait, though - it gets worse. Champions' Day, unfortunately, probably will feature on the show after all. Not, though, for its sporting glory, but for the fact that Christophe Soumillon picked up a five-day ban (at a time when he is contention for the French jockeys' premiership) and copped what amounts to a fine of nearly 50,000 pounds (and, before you ask, I have not added three extra zeroes onto that figure - he has forfeited his percentage for riding the winner, which is quite a forfeit as the race was the most valuable ever run in Britain) for trying and narrowly failing to stick to the new rules. His ride 
on Cirrus Des Aigles to win the Champion Stakes was a beauty. He was clearly trying to use the whip sparingly, hitting the horse six times. The first of these, as inspection of video replays revealed, came a couple of metres after the furlong pole. Had it come a couple of metres earlier, he would have been innocent; as it was, he was guilty, so has picked up a suspension which might cost him the French jockeys' championship plus what amounts to a colossal fine. 
His interview on ATR after the race was admirably measured, in which he explained that he'd believed that he had ridden within the rules, but because he'd had So You Think, a massive horse, on his inner and because there were so many QIPCO advertising hoardings along the rails, and because he was riding at a track which he doesn't visit very often, he had misjudged exactly where the furlong pole was. He didn't rant and rave, and when he said, "I am embarrassed for British racing", he wasn't just striking out in petulance because he had been punished; he was echoing the opinions of anyone who cares for our sport. In one stroke, I'm afraid, we have been made the racing equivalent of some banana republic where no one would go because you'd be frightened that if you inadvertently stepped out of line, the cops would lock you up and throw away the key. What foreign sportsmen would come here if that's the potential welcome that awaits? What future for the Shergar Cup, for instance?
I'd have to say, though, in defence of our rulers that they aren't guilty of all the crimes with which they have been charged. Bruce Millington in the Racing Post today was unduly harsh on Paul Roy. At least Paul Roy, having realised that the BHA which he rules has made a blunder, has had the humility to admit the possibility that he might be in the wrong, and has ordered that the case be re-opened, which shows an admirable ability to eat humble pie - and yet Bruce Millington is slating him for it. Furthermore, Millington has accused the BHA of inconsistency in that its veterinary adviser Tim Morris had said that the rules would not be reviewed one day and that Paul Roy had the next day said that they would; that, though, is not a case of 
inconsistency as I can't see that the whip rules should have anything to do with Tim Morris, whose brief is equine welfare. The whip rules, of course, have nothing to do with equine welfare at all, but are a PR exercise, designed not for the horses' benefit but to ensure that the man who has alighted from the Clapham omnibus, when he gets home and switches on his TV, doesn't find the sight of racing off-putting. And don't you feel sorry for the Ascot stewards, who were put in an impossible position? Either fail in their duty to implement the rules, or bring racing into disrepute by smacking an absurdly over-the-top punishment on a visiting foreigner, thus bringing international embarrassment to British racing. That would have been a Hobson's choice which I wouldn't have wished on any steward.
However, it's not all bad. The weather's been lovely. When that wonderful spell of glorious weather ended early last week, I thought that we would have had our lot until the second quarter of next year. Not so: the past couple of days have been heavenly. Of course, this far into October means that clear skies brought our first ground frost of the autumn last night, but that was a very small price to pay for wonderful days on either side of that night. I went to Cheltenham yesterday where we saw a sun-beaten Prestbury Park which you'd never expect to find on any day when it was hosting National Hunt racing. The drawback, of course, was that the ground was extremely fast, much faster than I would have expected. It was considerably quicker
than it had been at Huntingdon (which had been accurately described as good to firm, good in places) four days previously, and despite walking all the way around I didn't find any of the good patches which supposedly existed - but I judged it to be safe enough so Alcalde ran, and ran well too, even if the lightning fast conditions probably meant that the two miles might not have been enough of a test of stamina for him. I've been to Cheltenham Festivals and found that the supposedly good ground has been what I'd call good to soft, so I was rather taken aback yesterday; and there would certainly be an outcry if they were ever to produce ground as firm as it was yesterday for the Festival. But no harm was done, and the result was that some of Alcalde's owners and his trainer were able to enjoy a heavenly day at the home of steeplechasing, some of the photographs of which adorn this chapter - as do some taken today of scenes on the Severals and the Heath, in the yard and on the market place, where shoppers were treated to a display of falcons and owls. I loved that, and so would Alan Partridge had he been there too.
3 comments:
a fantastic piece john, I think the simplest way seems to be a jockey can use the whip so many times in a race (7 for example). The new rules are frustrating for everyone concerned including punters, I had a small bet on a horse in the week which was beaten a sh my jockey observed the rules kieran fox gave his horse a ride with more use of the whip and got a 15 day ban, this can only make people think twice about betting on horse racing,
Racing should have been about frankel this week and instead its been all about the whip,
John, what happens if a jockey has used his whip the permitted amount of times then the horse starts veering across the track causing massive interference to other runners, can the jockey then use the whip if not doing so caused danger to other horses and jockeys in the race?
Good Luck for Doctor Darcey today,
thanks
Ian
Excellent writing John. I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent group of people could not have foreseen trouble in introducing this during a season and before the 'big' day. Why do anything to risk something in which you have invested so heavily? Madness.
Soumillon spoke so well in a situation where he lost more money than I earn in a year. That he and Hughes, one of the most considerate of riders, should have been highlighted as 'bad guys' by these rules is an indictment in itself. There is a lot wrong with the sport at present and the BHA have made the situation ten times worse, why aren't sensible voices, like that of yourself, part of the governance of racing? I despair.
Thank you. Just on your final query, Ian, I'm always very dubious of the theory about the whip being used for steering: I was always taught, and have subsequently always found, that if you are having difficulty in steering the horse, the one thing which you must do is keep both hands on the reins. When I left school and started working for Andy Turnell, just a couple of years after he'd packed up riding on the death of his father and taken over the stable, the lads who had worked under Bob Turnell (who, of course, was a legendary horseman and tutor of horsemen - including, I only just learned after his death, Michael Jarvis) used to say that he'd always chastised riders who were too ready to pick up their whip by saying, "You seem to have enough difficulty riding that horse with two hands on the reins - so how on earth are you going to manage with only one?"
Post a Comment