Ideas for The Morning Line

LUKE said:
I saw the smug fella leave Leopardstown straight after Sea The Stars won the Champion Chase-adds nothing bar smugness.
Click to expand...

They should add Pat Keane to cover the betting. An absolute formbook and betting judge.
 
Maxbet said:
I would like to see Mick Fitz gone, why after every race does he have to tell whoever he co presents; "what you must remember on a horse like this is, on ground like this is" he talks to the audience like they are Jockeys then passes his aftertiming insight but mentions none of it beforehand. I'd like to see Tanya gone, she can't even remember the time when she's just looked at her watch, utterly useless. Don't they realise we have oddschecker tools and up to the minute information at our finger tips. Cunningham sits in the middle like a wimbledon tennis fan, and butts in more times than an angry Rhino.

Just give us the prevailing ground and weather conditions, any non runners, stable news, roll it all into 15 minutes and then slot in an extra Everybody Loves Raymond.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a 3rd Big Bang Theory instead!:lol:

In all seriousness, I think it's missing a lot of things. One of my favourites sections is Sam Thomas' Dark Horses. Nowhere near enough of this sort of thing. I understand of course that if there was more there would be no dark horses. There's nothing on the brave folks that ride the horses either. Surely wouldn't be too difficult to do a piece on 1 jockey per week during the season of that code, covering topics such as favourite course, tales of the weighing room, favourite winner, aspirations etc etc. They could send the crews out to yards to focus on the dedicated stable staff or a stud to visit the top horses of yesteryear to see how they're getting on and dedicate a slot to their racing career.

I do get up and watch it but that's because I'm an early riser. It does get on my nerves when you have Tanya saying horse x or y is a positive on the exchanges, all because Pricewise has put it up in the paper and the bookies have took evasive action. Yawn.

Edit - I also noticed about how only this weekend have people started pronouncing Jamie Bargary's surname correctly. For media professionals it was pretty pathetic to hear them keep calling him Bar-gary. Minor point though granted.

Other than that I agree with Granger's points.
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
What is it with you and controversy on racecourses? What was your crime?
Click to expand...


At a Cheltenham preview he said if Sublimity won the Champion Hurdle it was time to throw the formbook into the river.When I walked into Punchestown PK was the first person I saw-I called him over like I knew him all my life and said Pat did you get your formbook out of the river.My mate reckons that he went red and was close to decking me but it was only a bit of craic.
In fairness to Pat he writes some excellent stuff in the examiner.Himself and Donal McCarthy were the two best men to write an entertaining account about an off course gamble.
 
LUKE said:
At a Cheltenham preview he said if Sublimity won the Champion Hurdle it was time to throw the formbook into the river.When I walked into Punchestown PK was the first person I saw-I called him over like I knew him all my life and said Pat did you get your formbook out of the river.My mate reckons that he went red and was close to decking me but it was only a bit of craic.
In fairness to Pat he writes some excellent stuff in the examiner.Himself and Donal McCarthy were the two best men to write an entertaining account about an off course gamble.
Click to expand...

I worked with Donal. A lot of what he wrote was loosely based on the truth. I can't understand why he doesn't still write for The Field.
 
The Cheltenham shows are ok because there's a single focus but the weekly show tries to be all things to all men. If they have an hour to devote to racing, I'd prefer there be two half hour shows:
11.30 Saturday - a pure preview of the day's racing primarily for those interested in having a bet. Being later than the present effort, the market moves will be more informative and all the other relevant information will be more up to date.
11.30 Sunday - a magazine show reviewing the week past with other items like dark horses, trainer/jockey features etc.
The Saturday show only needs a knowledgeable studio host plus an industry guest with a link to a guest bookie for market moves.
The Sunday magazine could be a three way studio discussion with filmed feature inserts.

All a bit atr I know but it would provide a service for those who don't have atr or RUK.
 
The Morning Line and Channel 4 racing is just not working at the moment and that's the reason for this thread; I do believe it's in everyone's interests to keep racing on terrestrial TV. Living in America, the decline in interest in racing and the disrepute it brings on itself (Asmussen, buzzers etc) leaves it as a tertiary sport; only attaining any interest around the Triple Crown and, to some extent, the Breeders Cup. I look on the BBC site now and racing is not anywhere near to being one of the main sports. Losing tesrrestrial coverage would mean that newspapers would not show racecards (already happening), sponsorship would decline massively (look at the biggest betting races of the year - all of them are on Channel 4) I have no idea what the turnover was at Musselburgh today for a pretty good card but am confident it was well below the two races televised from Wetherby yesterday. With sponsorship and turnover declining and only specialised papers reporting, it is only a matter of time before funding declines, courses close and a slow but terminal malaise sets in. It doesn't have to be like this, of course: cricket has managed to move from terrestrial TV and has grown significantly. However, even that product has seen significant changes as it has had no option to move with the times; all the time though it has retained the support of both print and TV media. The only way we can be ambivalent about losing terrestrial coverage is if we have a product that can withstand that event and has the potential to build an audience on a different platform. This will take much more revolutionary leadership than we have seen and the 'old boys' network and incestuous (read insular and not open to outsiders) nature of racing will need to change forever.
Racing's inability to market itself and it's tendency to always be on the back foot are other things that need to change. Let's get people in who understand how to build a brand, understand what customer service is and how to run a business; they will decide how to best utilize Channel 4 and its product ..or not!
 
It's the suggestion that terrestrial coverage is a cure-all for racing's ills that is misplaced.

There are three main reasons why people don't get into racing, imo.

Firstly, most people think it is bent to a greater or lesser degree. Two, the language is arcane and inscrutable and too hard to understand. And three, understanding the mechanics of form takes time and experience, and the vast majority of sports-watchers have neither the time nor inclination to learn it.

Terrestrial coverage overcomes none of these fundamental challenges.
 
I tried to address EC1's main point in starting the thread, by reflecting on why I have been logging on to this site and its ancestral forebears for about 16 years and then paradoxically why, as a racing fan, writer, owner and bettor I rarely watch a full hour of coverage on the sport I love, even when I have nothing else to do on Saturday morning.

Here is (without too much deep thought) why I come on here. Information. Humour. Opinions. Controversy. Diversity. Aggravation.

Information on ML - rarely. On TH - I mean, just read the quality of some of the discussions - why can they not engage at that level?
Humour on ML - never. On TH, all you have to do is log on to a Clive/Hamm neverendingjewishvsmulimogram and chill out.
Opinions on ML - 'for me, Nick, possibly' - On TH - 'Worship at the feet of thy God Slim you worthless bastards.'
Controversy, diversity, aggro on ML - avoid at all costs - On TH - see above.

(PS -I assume the fragrant Hayley is excused from all the Bookie PR negativity above)
 
Last edited:
Hayley is very capable of talking about racing because she has a genuine passion for it but not betting. She has given some superb interviews when she's not necessarily towing the company line. Some of the other PR people are utterly clueless. However I may have taken my stalking of her too far in a recent tweet:

@hayleyladbrokes: Thanks to the press room and on course bookmakers at Leopardstown who donated €457 to my fundraising for @IJF_official

@dioraeg: @hayleyladbrokes @IJF_official God bless us. For one night I'd give you €100k and that would be value.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
It's the suggestion that terrestrial coverage is a cure-all for racing's ills that is misplaced.

There are three main reasons why people don't get into racing, imo.

Firstly, most people think it is bent to a greater or lesser degree. Two, the language is arcane and inscrutable and too hard to understand. And three, understanding the mechanics of form takes time and experience, and the vast majority of sports-watchers have neither the time nor inclination to learn it.

Terrestrial coverage overcomes none of these fundamental challenges.
Click to expand...
I agree that the three issues you mention need to be addressed but if they are not addressed and resolved before terrestrial TV coverage is lost then that, in my view, will be the beginning of the end.
This is not impossible provided there is the right mindset. Too often racing people seem to take a perverse delight in the arcane language and history of the sport; not understanding how inaccessible this makes it to the potential new followers who have plenty of alternatives so why invest time and money in something that may go nowhere (as regards being a future interest)?
I would argue that cricket has similarly arcane language and terminology and that, in fact, with the rules surrounding the one day matches, how to resolve rain-shortened games etc it has actually added to the difficulty in understanding..but, still, audiences grow because the product is exciting. The same can be said of the NFL which is one of the fastest growing sports worldwide; the idea that all viewers/ spectators understand all of the rules or could tell you the difference between a strong safety and free safety is laughable..but audiences grow because it’s a great product and you don’t have to understand every nuance. Baseball has much more arcane and indecipherable language than racing but has not been diminished by it – it’s current struggles with a declining audience is too many games, games taking too long and too many periods of inactivity (does any of that sound familiar/) – it hasn’t caught up to today’s societal needs.

I would also question the lack of inclination to learn. It may be true given changing priorities in people's lives but if the product is sold in the right way then people can be given incentives to learn. The incredible growth of Fantasy Football in the USA is testament to the fact that people are prepared to put in ordinate time and effort if the rewards and the excitement are there and, most importantly, it provides a social platform.
 
Last edited:
I should add that people have been complaining about terrestrial coverage for as long as I've been following racing, which is getting on for 25 years....and, right now, the sport* is probably stronger than it's ever been.

PS. I'm speaking only about National Hunt racing. I really have no clue as to the health of Flat racing, but obviously hope they pack that shi*te in as soon as possible, for reasons of good taste.
 
The difference with cricket, pdleech, is that you can go into the local park with a bunch of friends and play it. It is therefore infinitely more accessible than racing, in terms of engaging an audience at a young age.
 
Grasshopper said:
The difference with cricket, pdleech, is that you can go into the local park with a bunch of friends and play it. It is therefore infinitely more accessible than racing, in terms of engaging an audience at a young age.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the full toss Grasshopper:) Accessible as it may be cricket is only played competitively in less than 10% of State schools but still has a robust following from people in the 18-45 demographic ; they have not only retained but converted people to follow the sport. A better example than cricket in terms of accessibility would be Formula One racing; this has been made exciting and aspirational (but not participative) for young audiences. How does racing do the same?
 
I have dragged several people along to race meetings over the years who were not into racing. As long as it wasn't pouring down with rain they usually enjoy it. They like the mix of people involved and the opportunity to enjoy it on different levels. Racecourses are brilliant places for people watching, the horses in the parade ring make a fine sight and the excuse for a flutter also appeals. None of them have become hard bitten punters but on the big dates some of them might turn on the racing, or at least not turn it off.
 
SlimChance said:
Hayley is very capable of talking about racing because she has a genuine passion for it but not betting. She has given some superb interviews when she's not necessarily towing the company line. Some of the other PR people are utterly clueless. However I may have taken my stalking of her too far in a recent tweet:

@hayleyladbrokes: Thanks to the press room and on course bookmakers at Leopardstown who donated €457 to my fundraising for @IJF_official

ha. Indecent Proposal, good lad

@dioraeg: @hayleyladbrokes @IJF_official God bless us. For one night I'd give you €100k and that would be value.
Click to expand...
 
Grey said:
I have dragged several people along to race meetings over the years who were not into racing. As long as it wasn't pouring down with rain they usually enjoy it. They like the mix of people involved and the opportunity to enjoy it on different levels. Racecourses are brilliant places for people watching, the horses in the parade ring make a fine sight and the excuse for a flutter also appeals. None of them have become hard bitten punters but on the big dates some of them might turn on the racing, or at least not turn it off.
Click to expand...

Quite an endorsement, especially given the company that had to endure

Totally agree though. in fact the fact that racecourses are less full of hard bitten punters who dont wash and spend half the time banging their heads on the nearest wall is probably more appealing to many new racegoers. Im thinking Windsor on Monday nights. A bit of a seedy den in the 80s but now hugely popular and smart venue.

Racing crowds are holding up well. i go 30 times a year to mostly the same fixtures and many this season seemed busier than ever. the Challow hurdle day had its biggest ever crowd i believe.

Its a fine day out and most courses in the south have smartened up considerably
 
pdleech said:
Thanks for the full toss Grasshopper:) Accessible as it may be cricket is only played competitively in less than 10% of State schools but still has a robust following from people in the 18-45 demographic ; they have not only retained but converted people to follow the sport. A better example than cricket in terms of accessibility would be Formula One racing; this has been made exciting and aspirational (but not participative) for young audiences. How does racing do the same?
Click to expand...

mainly because bbc plug it endlessly. Can you imagine if racing had the same slavering coverage

Good point though because if you can get people interested in the most repulsive charmless and moronic "sport" of them all then you could get them to tune in to watch coverage of toilet cleaning at Wembley stadium
 
Racing is also increasingly seen by the casual sports follower as a cruel sport. Whip bans and a Flat-only sport are possibly the only ways to address this perception.
 
Back
Top