Bans, Commentators and Colours
There may have been many sharp intakes of breath
when it was announced that Peterjon Carberry had been handed a 40 day ban
by the BHH for dropping his hands and losing first and second place on
Monty’s Moon at Uttoxeter at the end of April.
Before I go any further allow me to declare an interest and state I had
backed Montys Moon to win the race and it really was my getting out stakes
following a bad afternoon. However I would have written the same had I not
had an investment on the day.
Many say the ban is too long, I happen to think the ban was spot on.
The apologists will say he is young, he made a mistake and everybody
mistakes and, to a point I agree, yes everybody does make mistakes. Most
people, however, learn from their mistakes.
In the days when I had people working for me I was very pragmatic when
people made mistakes, I may have expressed disappointment if I thought the
mistake was a silly, avoidable one but I certainly wouldn’t go into one.
The only time I ever did “go into one” as it were was if somebody repeated
the same, avoidable, mistake and that is precisely what Carberry has done.
Least anybody forget the reason Carberry was referred to the BHA in the
first place was this was his second offence in 12 months. He had failed to
ride out a finish at Sandown last November, an offence for which he picked
up a ten day ban.
Clearly he has not learned from that mistake so he clearly needs a
stronger punishment to focus the mind, as it were, hopefully the 40 days
will fully focus his mind
It also needs to be remembered this was his first ride at Uttoxeter. There
are some who offer this up as a mitigating factor, I would argue the
opposite. If a jockey is riding a course for the first time surely it is
incumbent upon him to walk the course, note the characteristics and know
where the finishing line. It is palpably clear Carberry did not do this
otherwise he would have seen the course marker which he mistook for the
winning post.
- - - - - - -
Racing For Change has been something of a curates
egg, good in places. Some of their simple changes, like large number
cloths, free race days have been a success.
Some of their grander ideas have been very credible in their concept,
although at times it could be argued the actual execution could be better.
The Champion’s Series and Champions Day are two of the most blindingly
obvious examples.
Both are theoretically good ideas but are at risk of being undermined due
to poor execution. The Champions Series is now underway but you would not
think so.
There have been some excellent videos made to accompany the series but
when shown, without introduction, on racecourse big screens and CCTV they
have been ignored.
There is also a brilliant video about Frankel – but where is it being
shown. On the racing channels – is that not preaching to the converted?
Should that video not be pushed in non-racing TV programs, even paying for
it to be shown as a TV advertisement.
I have similar worries about Champions Day . . . as a concept it is great,
my only concern is its proximity to the Arc weekend at Longchamp may well
dilute, what for me, is already the best weekends racing in Europe
throughout the year.
I am also interested and concerned as to how Champions Day will be
marketed to attract a wider audience – watch this space.
Amongst the better ideas from RfC there are also some idiotic ideas and
two are running currently.
The first is The Filly Factor, setting out with the aim of finding a
female racing commentator – the politest way of describing it is
patronising and offensive.
It is patronising to women in that it assumes there is some untapped
wealth of potential female commentators out there already. I don’t believe
there is. There is currently nothing preventing a female to apply to be a
commentator, yet Racetech who source the commentators have said they have
never even received a test tape from a female.
When I mentioned this matter elsewhere somebody commentated “women will
not apply because they feel it is a mans world and they feel intimidated.”
Sorry that is absolute tosh, if a woman really wanted to break into the
world of commentary then she would fight to get the role – if they could
be put off that easily I would actually question their desire to do the
job in the first place.
Certainly the men currently on the rosta have had to fight hard to get
there and to reach the exacting standards
required. Last year there were three “trainees” who wanted to be
commentators – only one of the three made it and one of the two who didn’t
make it is, in my opinion very good.
The competition is also offensive in that it makes light of what a
difficult job racing commentary is. To bring it down to the X-Factor level
is totally wrong. The existing commentators, with one (possibly two)
exceptions are all excellent and near faultless in their work.
To have a competition which turns commentary into a gimmick is wrong.
The only good thing to come out of the competition is it will show just
how good the commentators we already have are. If you think I am mistaken
have a look at the entries so far.
None are anywhere near the standard which would be acceptable on a
racecourse and bear in mind the entrants have had a chance to preview the
race and to practice – if they cannot produce a polished performance
having seen the race and having had the chance to practice then how can
they be expected to produce a polished performance “live”.
Now I am not criticising the ladies who have entered, who can blame them
for attempting to bag a £2,500 first prize. The blame should sit fairly
and squarely with the organisers who are devaluing a very difficult job.
I began this musing talking about not learning from mistakes and it links
in with my next observation.
One of the most stupid ideas in racing in not only the last year but
arguably in my lifetime was the introduction of team colours for last
year’s Shergar Cup. Not only were the designs too similar even the
colours, especially the blue and green, were almost impossible to
differentiate in the murk on the round course.
When the colours were introduced was there any discussion with
commentators or race readers. You will not a lack of question mar there as
it is a rhetorical question – of course there wasn’t.
Tinkering with colours is a no-no. Colours need to be clear, concise and
unambiguous and the current system, with its limited range of designs and
shapes actually works very well.
Ask any commentator how they cope with big fields and they will tell you
it is because they know the colours which have become familiar to them
over the years and they can quickly associate them with owners and
colours.
So what do our friend at RfC do – they have a competition to let art
students design new sets of colours. There is nothing in the rules of the
competition which stipulate designs have to be restricted to the standard
shapes and designs.
The result some certainly very arty but actually wholly impractical sets
of colours – there was even one set which looked like a Donald Duck – can
you picture Fallon or McCoy in those colours?
So I have one final suggestion for RfC why not have the winning colours
used in just one race – why not the race that is called by the winner of
The Filly Factor – somehow the winner of that competition calling home a
winning rider dressed as Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse seems most
appropriate.