Johnston to ITV: drop all betting coverage

Desert Orchid

Desert Orchid

Senior Jockey
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
25,629
I took this headline from the RP site.

[h=1]"Johnston to ITV:
drop all betting coverage"[/h]
Mark Johnston suggests betting coverage should play no part in the new coverage by ITV.

What do we all think?
 
On reflection, I think dropping all betting coverage is a mistake - the majority of the current viewers want to see what prices the winners came in, at the every least.

I don't think dropping the pre-race betting coverage would make much difference.
 
Is this a joke? They would be absolutely retarded to get rid of the betting coverage. Like it or not most people watch racing because they want to have a bet on it.
 
racing would die without betting so what johnston suggests is ridiculous

it should receive more focus if anything or at least change the way it's looked at
 
Last edited:
Depends what they mean by 'betting coverage.' If he means Tanya or Tom splutteringly tell us something we saw on oddschecker ten minutes earlier then I think we should drop it. If they mean having PR reps from bookmakers bullshit us while saying the name of their firm every 17 seconds then I think we should drop it. If it meant somebody like DO or EC1 deconstruct a race and show where value lay then I'm all for it.
 
He clearly doesn't think it will indirectly affect his income through the levy.. Why show it on reality television at all I guess?
 
Last edited:
Firstly it demonstrates what a dire period of racing we're in right now that this drivel makes the front page of the RP.

Secondly it's a ridiculous idea that gets the derision it deserves from Millington's comment column.

I would however agree with the general consensus that the current approach & delivery needs a severe revamp. Oddschecker type software is not particularly difficult to produce so what about having a realtime ticker or box at the bottom of the screen that shows the prices and e/w place terms etc. throughout the analysis of each race.
 
Last edited:
Agree strongly with Mr. AC.

Reminds me of an argument that I had on TRF with the Lydia Hislop.

I pointed out to her that they were producing free adverts for the bookies on RUK, she disagreed and when I forced the issue she started throwing extremely big words at me and after I accused her of intellectual bullying she threw her toys out of the pram and hasn't posted on there since (which is a pity and something that I regret).

How can RUK charge a subscription when you hear that the coverage is "powered by" one big bookmaker or another.
 
wilsonl said:
Firstly it demonstrates what a dire period of racing we're in right now that this drivel makes the front page of the RP.

Secondly it's a ridiculous idea that gets the derision it deserves from Millington's comment column.

I would however agree with the general consensus that the current approach & delivery needs a severe revamp. Oddschecker type software is not particularly difficult to produce so what about having a realtime ticker or box at the bottom of the screen that shows the prices and e/w place terms etc. throughout the analysis of each race.
Click to expand...


Doesn't it instead show what a dire rag the RP is, and how it has become nothing more a mouthpiece for Bookmakers, under the cretin Millington's dubious stewardship?
 
100% agree with An Capall.
Can anyone tell me the value of the betting coverage on Ch4 -the likes of Leon Blanche telling us that the favourite will be hard to beat and Tanya telling us her fancies.It could be pre recorded the day before.
 
I didn't offer an opinion at the time I started the thread because I wanted some time to mull it over.

I suppose the betting angle rose to prominence with McCririck and maybe took over a bit too much. I don't think the new coverage will succeed without doffing its cap to the betting. Thinking back to my teens and the days of the ITV7 and Julian Wilson, Clive Benson (was that his name - he was a columnist in one of the newspapers) and Peter O'Sullevan on the BBC, the betting was mentioned pretty much in passing rather than as a focus. I suspect Wilson maybe gave it more emphasis than anyone before him.

I actually like Tanya but she should be a lot slicker at her job than she is, with all these years behind her. (Look how quickly Clare Balding took to her TV role.) But I can almost feel my blood pressure rise when arseholes like Geoff Banks, the Betfair geek and all the other bookies' PR guys trying to make a cult of themselves are given so much air time.

I only have council TV so can't pass judgment on RUK or ATR (other than finding a dodgy stream online now and again) but always assumed they had people deconstructing races and pinpointing value?

The other side of that coin is that as soon as someone highlights the value to the general betting public, it fcuks off west, thereby rendering its lifespan to minutes, if not seconds. Similar stuff happens on here when Slim Chance puts up a rick.

Johnston compares racing coverage to football coverage but I think he misses the point. 95%+ of people watch football because they support a team, not because they just like watching the game. People who watch racing don't do so because they're dyed-in-the-wool followers of a trainer/jockey/owner/horse (although the frigger than thought up the scarves in the Denman/Kauto Star etc colours did their best to change that); I reckon most watch racing either to have a bet or to follow a bet.

Then again, Johnston is a self-confessed Top Gear fan. For that alone, I'd call into question his judgment :lol:
 
So far I have heard that the confirmed sign-ups for the ITV job are this bloke already mentioned from Sky, the dreaded Matt Chapman and Francesca Cumani. Anyone know anyone else yet?
 
Grasshopper said:
Doesn't it instead show what a dire rag the RP is, and how it has become nothing more a mouthpiece for Bookmakers, under the cretin Millington's dubious stewardship?
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly but I'd replace the word "instead" with "also" as it's hard to argue against this being a particularly dull spell in a dull flat season thus far and news of any worth is thin on the ground. The upcoming weekends racing is garbage and while it's for another thread, shows the complete idiocy of last Saturday.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I suppose the betting angle rose to prominence with McCririck and maybe took over a bit too much. I don't think the new coverage will succeed without doffing its cap to the betting. Thinking back to my teens and the days of the ITV7 and Julian Wilson, Clive Benson (was that his name - he was a columnist in one of the newspapers) and Peter O'Sullevan on the BBC, the betting was mentioned pretty much in passing rather than as a focus. I suspect Wilson maybe gave it more emphasis than anyone before him.
Click to expand...

In PO'S book Calling the horses he mentions that the BBC banned any betting related commentary for many years. I think he said he got a b*llocking for daring to mention a horse's SP. much of the book is about the gambling coups he pulled off so this ban must have been very frustrating.

Agree that Johnston has completely missed the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jinnyj said:
So far I have heard that the confirmed sign-ups for the ITV job are this bloke already mentioned from Sky, the dreaded Matt Chapman and Francesca Cumani. Anyone know anyone else yet?
Click to expand...

Francesca Cumani is just about the only thing that would persuade me to watch it. Even then I'd turn the sound off and just look at the pictures.
 
It's not as if we don't get enough betting info on the internet, but to exclude it from coverage is quite frankly bonkers. Surely it's who's presenting it and in what format rather than a yes or no.

As for Francesca Cumani, she popped up regularly on the Australian coverage of the big racing events while I was over there and she was excellent. She'd be a welcome addition for many reasons.
 
wilsonl said:
Undoubtedly but I'd replace the word "instead" with "also" as it's hard to argue against this being a particularly dull spell in a dull flat season thus far and news of any worth is thin on the ground. The upcoming weekends racing is garbage and while it's for another thread, shows the complete idiocy of last Saturday.
Click to expand...

and if ever evidence was required, tomorrow's cover stoops to new lows.

image.jpg

Golfing monthly now.
 
wilsonl said:
.......I'd replace the word "instead" with "also as it's hard to argue against this being a particularly dull spell in a dull flat season thus far and news of any worth is thin on the ground. The upcoming weekends racing is garbage.....
Click to expand...


That would be a tautology, Lee. :cool:
 
Johnston is wrong.

There is plenty to be said for covering all the aspects of racing that don't involve betting. The history of the sport, jockeys, trainers, owners, breeders, studs, stables, pedigrees - all can be covered by TV in interesting ways.

But gambling is an integral part of the sport's appeal. Most people who love the sport are likely to have developed their initial interest via the betting side.

As a racing fan, I can certainly watch and be interested in a race even if I haven't had a bet. But my main interest will be in trying to glean something from it that might help me with my future betting.

And, of course, the main person putting money into the sport, apart from the owner, is the punter.

A racing programme shouldn't be exclusively about gambling - and, despite what Johnston says, they never are - but a racing programme that ignores gambling wouldn't be a racing programme.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top