Here is a copy of the email I have sent to David Hunter, clerk of the course for Fakenham, after Friday's meeting was abandoned after just one race:
Dear David Hunter,
Commiserations on the abandonment of Friday's meeting.
I realise how devastating it was for all involved but I do think the whole thing is a mystery.
My main concern was how this had managed to occur but I do notice that the course was watered the day before the fixture. Living in Norwich , I am aware of the micro-climate that can exist in North Norfolk but, in the city, although it had not rained substantially for a few days, the ground, on my walks, still held plenty of moisture and so my question would be why the course was watered at all.
Secondly, once the watering had taken place, so close to the meeting the next afternoon, were no checks made to ensure that the water had not caused the 'fine covering of grass' to become slippy? Did not the groundstaff check in the morning that the surface was safe?
As one of the disappointed race-goers that day, it was disappointing of course but also I felt incredulous that such a thing could occur. Indeed, it has not thrown a particularly kind light on yourself and the ground staff.
I have heard no news of such but I wonder if the BHA will hold an enquiry into the whole sorry affair. It should, in my opinion, on the grounds of racing's image and integrity.
Then, to top it all, customers will only be entitled to a 50% refund. I know that our tickets for the day will be valid for future meetings but that, in my opinion, is hardly generous. I think spectators, whose day was completely ruined, should be entitled to a full refund, should they wish.
It seems hardly fair that supporters of the course should be hit in the pocket like this when the cancellation was due to, I have to say, the course's mismanagement.
I'm not sure where the course stands with insurance and whether there will be an insurance claim to recoup losses but I do wonder, if this is the case, whether insurers may well question culpability and decide that the situation was one engineered by the course itself in its decision to water so close to the meeting taking place. Might they not conclude that the watering was a act of negligence and therefore not eligible for a payout?
In no way do I wish to be rude to you, sir, but apart from the one statement published by yourself that contains an apology, there has been an absolute drought of information over the circumstances surrounding the abandonment. It may well be that the watering in no way affected or caused the situation but how would we know?
Do you not feel that a more nuanced statement might be helpful in disabusing race enthusiasts of the possible notion that race-goers are disrespected by those that govern and deliver this wonderful sport?
Sincerely,
Too harsh?
Dear David Hunter,
Commiserations on the abandonment of Friday's meeting.
I realise how devastating it was for all involved but I do think the whole thing is a mystery.
My main concern was how this had managed to occur but I do notice that the course was watered the day before the fixture. Living in Norwich , I am aware of the micro-climate that can exist in North Norfolk but, in the city, although it had not rained substantially for a few days, the ground, on my walks, still held plenty of moisture and so my question would be why the course was watered at all.
Secondly, once the watering had taken place, so close to the meeting the next afternoon, were no checks made to ensure that the water had not caused the 'fine covering of grass' to become slippy? Did not the groundstaff check in the morning that the surface was safe?
As one of the disappointed race-goers that day, it was disappointing of course but also I felt incredulous that such a thing could occur. Indeed, it has not thrown a particularly kind light on yourself and the ground staff.
I have heard no news of such but I wonder if the BHA will hold an enquiry into the whole sorry affair. It should, in my opinion, on the grounds of racing's image and integrity.
Then, to top it all, customers will only be entitled to a 50% refund. I know that our tickets for the day will be valid for future meetings but that, in my opinion, is hardly generous. I think spectators, whose day was completely ruined, should be entitled to a full refund, should they wish.
It seems hardly fair that supporters of the course should be hit in the pocket like this when the cancellation was due to, I have to say, the course's mismanagement.
I'm not sure where the course stands with insurance and whether there will be an insurance claim to recoup losses but I do wonder, if this is the case, whether insurers may well question culpability and decide that the situation was one engineered by the course itself in its decision to water so close to the meeting taking place. Might they not conclude that the watering was a act of negligence and therefore not eligible for a payout?
In no way do I wish to be rude to you, sir, but apart from the one statement published by yourself that contains an apology, there has been an absolute drought of information over the circumstances surrounding the abandonment. It may well be that the watering in no way affected or caused the situation but how would we know?
Do you not feel that a more nuanced statement might be helpful in disabusing race enthusiasts of the possible notion that race-goers are disrespected by those that govern and deliver this wonderful sport?
Sincerely,
Too harsh?
