There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
On the first weekend of the year, many hackles were raised in the troublesome world of racing, perhaps an early taste of the 12 months ahead. We didn't have much action to divert us, that was a big part of the problem, but there was also a lot of ill feeling about how some abandonments were handled.
That's not new, although the levels of frustration being expressed seemed unusually high this time. But it's quite often the case that abandonment of a race-meeting is then followed by criticism, either of the decision or how it was arrived at or how the whole process was communicated to would-be spectators and participants.
I often find myself trying to assess whether a clerk of the course has, in fact, done something wrong. The difficulty in trying to make that judgement is we don't have any clear standard against which to measure performance.
Where's our detailed protocol about how inspections and abandonments should be handled? Where's the list of obligations that racecourses are expected to meet when a fixture is in doubt? Where's the list of things that racegoers and trainers and jockeys and owners can legitimately expect?
The whole sorry business has never been codified and the result is that we're always kept off-balance when this subject comes up, we never quite know what to expect. That starts with the timing of inspections, which are all over the place; they can be any time at all and the timing is hardly ever explained. The subsequent question of when the result of the inspection will be published is just as opaque and wildly variable.
Why can't those things be standardised? We could at least have a default time for early-morning inspections in winter, and an earlier default time in summer, with the track required to report the outcome within a certain number of minutes. That way, we'd all have a clear idea of when to check in for important news, rather than spending all morning constantly refreshing racingpost.com for the latest news.
We should also have a discussion about how much optimism is acceptable on the part of a clerk. Like gamblers, some of them have a higher tolerance for risk than the rest.
I accept it can sometimes be valid for a clerk to delay making a decision until close to the time of the first race, because there really is a significant chance of the frost coming out of the ground, or the water draining away or some other problem resolving itself. But sometimes it feels like they're hoping for a 25-1 chance to come good and the only real reason for hope is that they've got their fingers crossed.
Some clarity from the ruling body would be helpful here, spelling out certain minimum requirements before a clerk can be allowed to sustain everyone's hopes with a late inspection. The BHA's stewards on each site can ensure that any specified standards are adhered to.
Even the question of compensation for participants is left up to each track. I'm told the usual expectation is that the racecourse will pay something like £300 per runner in the event of a late abandonment, where horses have already travelled. But there's no formal requirement on which owners, trainers and jockeys could rely.
It would also be really helpful for the powers that be to give us a rough idea of the value to the sport of each fixture going ahead. Then, when a fixture was clearly in peril, we'd have some insight as to whether a late inspection would be justified when set against the cost being risked by everyone travelling towards the racecourse.
Organisers need to remember that the goodwill of racing's audience is part of that cost. Every time you drag racegoers into the frozen countryside and then send them home unentertained, you're trying the patience of our supporters and potentially thinning out their numbers. It is not something to be done lightly or repeatedly.
The weather in Britain and Ireland can be thoroughly unhelpful, as we're all aware. Forecasts can be completely wrong. There can be a need for flexibility in organising inspections.
But it can be flexibility within a known framework. Let's bring some clarity, stability and predictability into this chaotic little world of inspections, precautionary or otherwise.
There will still be disappointment at times but such things are easier to bear when we can all see that the right procedures were followed and no one was taking silly risks with our time and money.
That's not new, although the levels of frustration being expressed seemed unusually high this time. But it's quite often the case that abandonment of a race-meeting is then followed by criticism, either of the decision or how it was arrived at or how the whole process was communicated to would-be spectators and participants.
I often find myself trying to assess whether a clerk of the course has, in fact, done something wrong. The difficulty in trying to make that judgement is we don't have any clear standard against which to measure performance.
Where's our detailed protocol about how inspections and abandonments should be handled? Where's the list of obligations that racecourses are expected to meet when a fixture is in doubt? Where's the list of things that racegoers and trainers and jockeys and owners can legitimately expect?
The whole sorry business has never been codified and the result is that we're always kept off-balance when this subject comes up, we never quite know what to expect. That starts with the timing of inspections, which are all over the place; they can be any time at all and the timing is hardly ever explained. The subsequent question of when the result of the inspection will be published is just as opaque and wildly variable.
Why can't those things be standardised? We could at least have a default time for early-morning inspections in winter, and an earlier default time in summer, with the track required to report the outcome within a certain number of minutes. That way, we'd all have a clear idea of when to check in for important news, rather than spending all morning constantly refreshing racingpost.com for the latest news.
We should also have a discussion about how much optimism is acceptable on the part of a clerk. Like gamblers, some of them have a higher tolerance for risk than the rest.
I accept it can sometimes be valid for a clerk to delay making a decision until close to the time of the first race, because there really is a significant chance of the frost coming out of the ground, or the water draining away or some other problem resolving itself. But sometimes it feels like they're hoping for a 25-1 chance to come good and the only real reason for hope is that they've got their fingers crossed.
Some clarity from the ruling body would be helpful here, spelling out certain minimum requirements before a clerk can be allowed to sustain everyone's hopes with a late inspection. The BHA's stewards on each site can ensure that any specified standards are adhered to.
Even the question of compensation for participants is left up to each track. I'm told the usual expectation is that the racecourse will pay something like £300 per runner in the event of a late abandonment, where horses have already travelled. But there's no formal requirement on which owners, trainers and jockeys could rely.
It would also be really helpful for the powers that be to give us a rough idea of the value to the sport of each fixture going ahead. Then, when a fixture was clearly in peril, we'd have some insight as to whether a late inspection would be justified when set against the cost being risked by everyone travelling towards the racecourse.
Organisers need to remember that the goodwill of racing's audience is part of that cost. Every time you drag racegoers into the frozen countryside and then send them home unentertained, you're trying the patience of our supporters and potentially thinning out their numbers. It is not something to be done lightly or repeatedly.
The weather in Britain and Ireland can be thoroughly unhelpful, as we're all aware. Forecasts can be completely wrong. There can be a need for flexibility in organising inspections.
But it can be flexibility within a known framework. Let's bring some clarity, stability and predictability into this chaotic little world of inspections, precautionary or otherwise.
There will still be disappointment at times but such things are easier to bear when we can all see that the right procedures were followed and no one was taking silly risks with our time and money.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 22
|
By:
Will never be implemented, would make them accountable
|
|
By:
What Chris Cook does not mention is that ITV coverage was wiped out which is a foreseeable but unforeseen side-effect of the Premier Racing initiative which aims to have only the Premier meetings in prime time, which meant the surviving meetings went off too late for the telly.
But maybe I'm prejudiced because I've never seen the point of Premier Racing. |
|
By:
if Chris cook thinks a chelt festival day with a chance of been on isa going to be called off at say 9 0 clock because a wet Tues card at catterick was called off at 9 ,he,s even more stupid than he comes across as been, if edin/plum had been KG meeting,chelt festival meeting called off late they,d have been cheered for trying,those in the game MSM etc had ,had a glut of quality racing over XMAS/new yr and basically couldn't give a stuff if the edin card had been called off the day before
|
|
By:
Get rid of some of the low quality races to lighten the burden of travelling for some jockeys. The money saved could be redirected to areas where it's more useful and needed eg to increase prize money and daily staff canteen and welfare to name two.
I've not had a bet for almost two weeks, just 'Denise's price boosts. Even the prestigious races like the King George, Savills Chase were antepost bets. If I'm not betting regularly, the industry has a problem. |
|
By:
impossible123 06 Jan 25 16:19
Get rid of some of the low quality races to lighten the burden of travelling for some jockeys. The money saved could be redirected to areas where it's more useful and needed eg to increase prize money and daily staff canteen and welfare to name two. If they need some more money then take some out of the extra 250,000 for the King George as the owners won't need it. |
|
By:
If the industry we're relying on you putting on free bets then it's fu《ked
|
|
By:
I think the recent King Georges were not what they were ever since Irish trainers were less inclined to partake. The last year was an aberration because of JP ownership. I hope this year will be the same too eg Fact To File.
|
|
By:
^
What the hell has that got to do with this thread??? And fro the Irish have won 3 out of the last 4 King Georges! |
|
By:
His point about some sort of guidance is valid though. Is it reasonable to leave each course to decide a cut off time and a policy on compensating racegoers, owners and trainers? The experience at Musselburgh will have put a lot of people off going racing or entering horses when there is any doubt about weather.
|
|
By:
sageform
I was not criticising Chris Cook…..it’s the moron who posted at 20:36 |
|
By:
well the cut off time for chelt festival/big Saturday meeting would be an hr before the 1st race ,so edin.plumpton were half an hr late
there.d be riots if chelt/national day etc were called off and 4 hrs later it was raceable |
|
By:
The variables are just that, variables. Each track has different dynamics. For example, you've either got too much fog or you haven't. Can't really call off a meeting as there might be thick fog later in the day. We are already evolving backwards with the ubiquitous precautionary principle as a society. The risk is with racegoers and connections, if you plan to go racing in Scotland in the winter, it might not go ahead
 If you don't like the risk, don't enter, don't buy a ticket. The mandate for CoCs and racecourse managers is to give out timely and accurate information. |
|
By:
To be fair Cider after the threshold was set at Chepstow Welsh Grand National Meeting I would doubt many meetings will be called off for fog.
Luke Harvey was presenting and he said at the time he couldn't see his hand in front of his face... just glad there wasn't a lot of fallers / casualties as would have looked very bad. |
|
By:
yr you have to look back in history to find one fogged off, other than 48 hrs ago at chepstow obviously
 |
|
By:
I'm getting at calling the meeting off for possible bad fog based on a forecast. I was under the impression that there was guidance around whether it's safe to race, along the lines of seeing the furlong marker from the finishing line? Do we really want racing to be called off if there's a possibility the meeting might be abandoned at some point?
|
|
By:
Plenty of meetings abandoned for fog in my memory 1st TP, Wolves, Southwell and Bath spring to mind and almost impossible for them to make the call until very late.
|
|
By:
Agree Cider you can't call a meeting off for fog due to it being forecasted, as it can lift so easily / not be in certain areas.
Be interested to know if there is a measurement they use. Just stuck in my mind Luke Harvey saying he couldn't see his hand in front of his face. 1st time poster I thought they called Chepstow off due to ground as it got more rain after the morning inspection and the jockeys thought it was unsafe or was it fog too? |
|
By:
I'm assuming Harvey was exaggerating, but yes the argument around whether racing should be abandoned early as a precaution is different to whether it's practically safe to race at the time.
|
|
By:
Two years ago next month I planned on attending Fakenham which meant planning weeks in advance and booking a cottage for 4 days as well as the logistics of getting there. The meeting was abandoned the night before due to the ground being hard and unable to water. Not something you would expect in February but an example of the multiple variables Cider mentioned and the difficulties of having a "National" set of guidelines.
Also attended in October where it was abandoned after 1 race, bad luck maybe but something racegoers have to accept may happen in the UK at any time of year given the unpredictable weather i.e take the chance or don't, your choice. COCs do the best they can imo. |
|
By:
Lucky white heather….
|
|
By:
we also have the situation one the other day edin .one last yr was it plumpton where trainers are basically making the decision for COC by withdrawing horse in large numbers .making the racing farcical if it does take place as regards bets already placed etc
|
|
By:
I remember a day at Ludlow when I set off from Gloucestershire on abright sunny day and was looking forward to the day. It was only when I got to a mile away from the course that I hit a pool of fog that caused racing to be abandoned.
|