Racing's Insecurity...

S

stodge

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
206
Location
Sutton
While most of the media attention has been on Ascot, Wimbledon is approaching and the banning of the African horn-thing that's worth a lot of points in Scrabble notwithstanding, my eye was drawn to the comment that there would NOT be any World Cup football shown at Wimbledon.

Contrast that with racecourses which, apart from the routine of a concert by a well-known band (Sandown, Epsom, Ascot, Goodwood) or a tribute band (Lingfield), have actively pushed the fact that the World Cup will be shown in all its glory on big screens.

So, the message is clearly - come and listen to the music, watch the football, drink in our overpriced bars, eat our overpriced food, pay £20 or more for the privilege and don't worry about the racing.

I know some on here won't like it but in my view there is a serious problem if the racing is so far down the priority for racecourses themselves that they simply want to swell their coffers rather than promote their own sport.

Wimbledon takes the view that you're there for the tennis and for no other reason. Racing takes the view that you're there for anything other than racing.

Courses clearly think that NOT showing the World Cup and NOT having concerts makes the sport commercially unviable. Perhaps that's the route to a rationalised fixture list.
 
And of course the poor sod who goes there to watch the racing has to pay the extra for the racing when these gigs are on even if they don't want to watch them.
 
I don't think it's a fair comparison. Wimbledon is a once-a-year event which has people queuing overnight to get in. It's fair to say that they can be confident about attracting a full house regardless of what else is going on in the sporting world.

A fairer (but still far from ideal) comparison would be between Wimbledon and specifically Royal Ascot, where I read today the World Cup is not being shown other than in the 'Betfair Lounge', and indeed there has been little demand for it.
 
Racing 0 Football 1...

I take the point, Gareth. I do think Wimbledon HAS shown England matches before. On the assumption England progress, Wimbledon will be fortunate because the second round and quarter-finals that England are likeliest to reach have 7.30pm kick-offs and the big singles matches will or should be over by then.

If things don't work out, it could be 3pm kick-offs and that would be more problematic.

Last Saturday, Leicester arranged their racing round the football with the last race at 7.25pm though Lingfield kept to its timings.

Did anyone consider changing the times of next Wednesday afternoon's fixtures with earlier starts and finishes ?

I can't imagine bookmakers taking as much money when the football is on. Looking in on one bookies last Saturday, everyone was glued to the football with the various racing, dog and virtual racing going unnoticed.
 
Stodge, in 2006 racecourses were almost deserted, particularly when England played. Brighton put on a cheap day, a free beer, and a big screen to show the footie on, and got about 5 paying customers. There's really no chance of ordinary meetings doing well when it's World Cup year. I went to Hove Dogs tonight to see some friends' dogs run, and there was a top race with £5,000 prize money. In spite of a very extensive and much-improved menu, the restaurant was only 3/4 full and the bars hardly patronised at all. It was fine weather, so what would be distracting people from an evening's racing?

I'm too tired to keep responding to the same theme (this is so not the first time you've come up with it), but the music shows are put on after racing, as a little downtime for racegoers who may not want to go rushing home straightaway. You've missed out loads of other courses, including Fontwell, which stage after-racing entertainment. Racing doesn't appeal to just racing fans, as we ought to have realised by now. It's seen as part of entertainment rather than just sport, whereas I'd have trouble in sitting through a whole afternoon's worth of tennis and not think it was purely a sporting event. The other wrong thing about comparing tennis to racing is that with racing you have decent-enough gaps between the races to do other things, like eat, drink, chat, stroll around and look over any stalls if it's a themed day like Food & Drink, Countryside, etc., especially if you've got kids with you. Once you've taken your seat at Wimbledon, you don't get up and down and disturb everyone because you decide to wander outside. They're very different experiences.

As for you continuing to say that going racing is so expensive - it's not so expensive if you pre-book online or in groups, or are a student, an OAP, or an Annual Member where the cost is amortised over the year. Walk-ups are the most expensive way of going racing, but we've gone over that loads of times. Families happily fork out for a day's out-of-the-house fun, some fresh air in a safe environment, perhaps treat Grampa to a birthday party in the restaurant or even book a hospitality box, and so on.

As for bookies - you mean you're sympathising with them? You're a very generous-minded punter! They'll have been taking loads on the World Cup, so they won't have been missing much on the racing, and then they'll have Wimbledon to fill their pockets.
 
Jon, we have been over this before and I think you've misinterpreted some of my comments (not for the first time).

I'm well aware of the commercial realities but there is an alternative and that's not to race at all. Fixtures could easily be cancelled or rescheduled as Leicester did last week.

My "problem" from your perspective is that I'm probably too much of a purist. I go racing partially because of the social side but also because I enjoy watching racing. I've absolutely no problem with and would positively encourage courses to utilise their facilities on non-racing days and that's totally right and proper.

However, when it's a raceday, the racing should be the thing doing the selling, not the bar or the big-screen with the footie nor even Spandau Ballet. The fact is racecourses are becoming places to watch the football or see Westlife and I've no problem with that ON NON-RACING DAYS.

If a racecourse wants to hold a concert and show the footie on a big screen, it can do it anytime just as they can hold exhibitions, conferences etc, etc.

Yet they don't.

Instead, they take what should be their unique selling point (USP) which is the racing and dilute it with the music, the footie etc, etc. I understand the commercial reality of that but it doesn't mean I have to like it and it doesn't make you right either.

That's my reference to insecurity - Wimbledon is secure in its product, football grounds are secure in their own product. Racing isn't.

There is also a substantial part of the population which isn't interested in the football - where is the racecourse trying to attract these people ? I would dearly love Lingfield to say - "no football, no music, just racing and a good time" (though I suppose with a line-up featuring U2UK and the Take That Experience they are meeting me halfway on the music). Instead, they bend over backward to the football fraternity.

I was there in June 2006 on the night England went out of the World Cup. The mood of the evening was deflated once England lost and a lot of people simply went home after the game - the time difference meant the game started long before racing was scheduled to begin. For those who were there for the racing rather than Rooney, it was still a good evening because we weren't bothered with the virility test going on in the Far East.

As for the bookmakers, as they pay for every race, the real crunch will come when they stop doing so. I don't know the economics of betting shops but round my way, the killer blow wouldn't be the loss of racing but the removal of the FOBTs. The Tamils in East Ham are far more interested in that than anything happening at Ascot, Lingfield or elsewhere.
 
I'm not competing in a Right or Wrong comp, Stodge. Any point of view is valid - but I just think that by admitting you're a racing purist you've been staring defeat in the face for a decade, and your pain won't get any less!

Racing has lost its old-time, regular attendances for all but its most traditional outings. Time was Brighton had 15-20,000 lining both sides of its straight, as did Plumpton. The train brought in thousands from London but, since the advent of so much more car-owning, people can now choose to go to places where the train doesn't serve them. (Like Asda!) Football's always been a much more tribal affair - you don't see thousands of racing fans wearing Haydock Park t-shirts grappling in the carpark after racing with I'm Up For Ayr fans, do you? While there's local loyalty to courses, it's not as if courses, per se, garner the adoration that equine heroes do, or even jockey heroes. Nobody would turn out to see a Wertheimer horse as such, but they will turn out in their huddled masses to see KAUTO STAR, Tony McCoy, or Frankie perform, regardless of whether they know a gaskin from a gasket.

You've lost the battle because racing is now part of not so much just sport, but entertainment. Tacking on a music show won't make racing 'purists' stay on after the last race, but it will help to distil the perception that the business is elitist and stuffy if U2 or Suspiciously Elvis are entrancing the remaining thousands.

Your other issue, the World Cup, is a bit difficult. You'd have to have no racing at all on the days when Ingerland played and then you would insult the racing purists, who'd say why the hell must we kowtow to footie?

As for the bookies, you know all about them and I don't, so I can't say anything on that. I just know that racing has long since ceased to be a purist sport, which is exactly what Racing for Change wants to see.
 
The End ?

The most depressing part of it, Jon, is less the fact that you're probably right but that the manifestations of Racing for Change seem so eager to walk down this path.

One could argue that ALL sport is entertainment and one can also argue that through 20:20 cricket has reinvented itself as an entertainment. That seems to lie at the heart of Walsh's widely-derided comments last week. The concepts of "premierisation" and "bullet races" and "lunchtime races" is not to improve the quality of the sport but to improve the quality of the entertainment.

In a sense we are moving toward a form of internal schism within racing where a small amount of racing as sport vies with a larger amount of racing as entertainment and a third category of racing as betting shop fodder. To satisfy all three criteria, more meetings and more races are created and the spiral goes on.

The illusion or delusion is the concept that we are somehow creating a generation of racing enthausiasts through the entertainment route. The top meetings (Ascot, Cheltenham, Goodwood etc, etc) will always sell just as Test Matches and Wimbledon and Premier League football sells. The cream will always bring in the crowds.

The "entertainment" meetings (evenings, bank holidays, sats and suns) will have to continue to compete with other attractions and either co-operate with them via big screens or try innovative methods to keep bringing in the crowds (free admission ?).

The "betting shop fodder" (midweek meetings) will continue as long as the bookies want them or perceive them to be of value. This is where the cuts are likeliest to occur - could we in future have just one afternoon meeting and say four evening meetings in the summer ?

It will be this unholy trinity of premierisation, entertainment and betting shop fodder that will shore up the fixture list and keep it expanding.
 
Oh, dear - I can't find anything there to argue against, Stodgerino! :D I'm in full concord with you now that I understand your position. As for the suggestion of one afternoon meeting and four evenings in summer I'd say yes, why not give that a go? Anything to attract people is worth trying, and it wouldn't compete with the beach/sunbathing/late lunch folks, garden fetes and what-have-you.

I know we've (I'm talking about racing generally) upset many diehard racing fans like yourself with the face-painting, clowns, funfairs, ferret races, kuddly kitten korners, let alone the concerts, etc., but 'family fundays' are here to stay while, on the other hand, building more onsite hotels will be generating golf 'n' race weekends at spa hostelries aimed at the more discerning (and possibly richer) customer. That, too, dilutes racing per se to a degree, in that it's not purely horses, but if it helps to tap into the social side in a long-term way, then I can see it'll be a good way forward.
 
Maybe the decline in public interest in racing has come about through fewer people having actual contact with horses?

The major sports now are all ones that their fans can participate in themselves i.e. cricket, football and tennis fans can all actually do - at whatever level their abilities allow - whereas the only contact for racing fans is to watch on the box or observe at the course.

At one point football was very much the poor relation to racing, but during the seventies the men in suits realised that this was a potentially good business and marketed it so well that most households have at least one dedicated footie fan.

A football match lasts much longer than any kind of horse race, which enables people to buy in the beers, takeaways etc, have their mates round to whoever's screen is the biggest and make an afternoon or evening of it.

There are also teams that can be followed, allowing an outlet for our very basic "tribal" instincts. The nearest that racing has come to this in the last 20 years is Kauto Star/Denman, which was even mentioned in the national news a couple of times.

Cricket already has a very wide and dedicated fan base in the large Asian and West Indian communities here. One of our consultants says that in India and Pakistan cricket is almost a religion. Again, much of the appeal is that the people themselves can participate. Kids see it at the pitch or on the TV, then go out and emulate what they have watched. I have observed this for myself in the playing field behind my house. There is absolute silence throughout the time of the match, then 10 minute or so after the match has ended, the kids are out playing cricket or footie - often with commentary as they pretend to be the ace bowler or striker.

Promoting cricket was therefore always going to be easier than promoting racing as how many kids have access to horses/ponies to copy what they have just watched?

I do think that the decline in the coverage of racing has also done its bit. Also the style of that coverage has changed in that there is so much talking before each race with so little cover being given to the actual horses. RUK does, thankfully, give a little more attention to the nags than the BBC, C4 or ATR, but only the dedicated racing fans will have paid to watch it.

I remember Clare Balding standing in the middle of the paddock at Haydock one day, desperately trying to get her cameraman to film the horse that she was trying to point out to viewers, but the cameraman stubbornly kept his focus solely on her. For anyone who had idly turned over to see what's on, that would have been a big turn-off and frustrating for the racing fan. Who wants to watch someone standing in a paddock pointing out things about an animal that they cannot even see?

Clare, fair play, was doing her best to point out the horse's conformation and indications of its fitness for those who are not familiar with horses - the majority of people these days. The style of coverage needs to be changed, to allow people to actually find out what the hell the professionals are talking about. RUK does focus a lot on the horses pre-race, but assume that their audience know what they are looking at - which not all racing fans do - and non-fans (mostly) would not.

It seems that racing is up against social change as well as poor coverage - which in turn is affected by demographics. Better coverage would help a great deal, thus opening up what appears to be a somewhat closed shop to the majority of people, but the style of coverage would have to change, to make viewers feel better informed and therefore more involved.

Racecourses, on the other hand, are businesses in themselves. They have to pay their way or close and once they have closed they are fair game for the developers, so will be gone for good in a majority of cases. Therefore bums on seats becomes a priority. If racing clashes with a major football match, then it is a wise move - business-wise -to attract those people who would otherwise watch it at home.

However, it is a poor move not to at least try to divert their attention to the racing. This could be done by promoting a particular race and maybe running a competition based around that race, perhaps along the lines of giving them the information about the track/runners/riders etc, let them work out the finishing order of the first 3 or 4 and stand the chance of winning a decent prize.

This in turn serves to educate the novice racegoer in the basics of racing - so many are put off by all the different factors involved in a horse's performance, not to mention the jargon. Allowing someone to understand the basics of what is going on serves to make them feel more involved rather than alienated by a lack of knowledge, which means that they are more likely to take more interest in the sport and maybe even return to the track for the racing itself.

Diversifying has been a major busines survival tactic since the late seventies. My local track, Cheltenham, was always a leader in this respect. When Edward took over at the very young age of 27, his first move was to use the course facilities during the off season and between racing fixtures as a conference centre. This has extended and it now hosts the Wychwood Festival, the annual horse show, Pony Club camp, caravan rallies, the Q rally for a few years and the annual HOG ride for Harley owners. Use of the whole space keeps the money rolling in.

The problem is multi-faceted, but I feel that the basics are more and better coverage on terrestrial TV, combined with a change in attitude of the majority of racecourses towards their less racing-oriented patrons. Both of these with the view of making the viewer/visitor feel more involved and therefore more welcome.
 
Last edited:
I would have to say I found RUK the most irritating of the lot for not showing the horses, and for the endless talking heads babbling on about every animal, right down to the 200-1 shot, without ever showing them. It's the reason I cancelled my sub to them - I couldn't stand Mellish and Hislop endlessly blithering about every aspect of every horse (and sniggering at in-jokes too often) without letting us see the blasted animal! Even when the animals got to the start, they were then plastered over with a solid SP show, so that we just saw them race. Even F1, which is probably far more arcane and aloof from the general public than horse-racing, manages to show the cars, discuss team tactics, and interview leading lights before the green light goes on.

We do have problems in horse-riding being terribly expensive, and by no means enough access to learning to ride if you live in an urban area (which is most of the population). Who on earth can cough up £20 for a half-hour on a regular basis, let alone afford to keep even a small pony, if they're on average salaries? If you're rural, you're okay, you have fields, outbuildings or shelters, and access to transport if not your own Rice trailer.

But to get youngsters interested in horses, per se, before developing their interest in racing in specific, is very difficult without Mummy and Daddy having a small fortune. I'd like to see riding schools bring down prices and encourage children to take part in the stables experience, but I imagine some of the problem there lies with insurance. Get beaned by an errant cricket ball, and it's just an accident. Fall over playing footie and break your arm - same thing. Fall off a hired horse and break you leg - instant insurance claim.

The British Racing School and the Northern School of Racing exist to involve youngsters in learning how to race-ride, without any prior knowledge of horses required. But how many kids 'in the street', as it were, know of their existence? I'm sure most kids could tell your where their local boxing club is, where the snooker hall is, where the basketball hoops are. But we don't have enough regional racing schools, and that's a great disadvantage to advertising racing's career opportunities to them. We need to regionalise teaching kids to ride, learning horse care, and providing them with very cheap (nominal) contributions to the experience, while presenting them with much more clear ideas of all of the jobs which exist around the racehorse. Why must they wait to go to agri-college to learn how to breed them? Why not do placements at studs from regional learning bases, things they could do in term break time? And why not bring them into racecourse offices during the same time off from school to help out with the administration which goes into organising racedays - whether they find themselves tilting towards accounts, catering, or grounds work, it's all opening their eyes to racing as a valid career choice.

(I've wandered off-topic somewhat, Stodge - sorry about that! But if we're to have a future of confident racing managers in every area of its existence, we could, I think, do much better than we're doing now. It's still hit-and-miss and bringing in accountants to manage courses, or 'leisure club' managers who think it's just like running Butlins just doesn't work.)
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
I would have to say I found RUK the most irritating of the lot for not showing the horses, and for the endless talking heads babbling on about every animal, right down to the 200-1 shot, without ever showing them. It's the reason I cancelled my sub to them - I couldn't stand Mellish and Hislop endlessly blithering about every aspect of every horse (and sniggering at in-jokes too often) without letting us see the blasted animal! Even when the animals got to the start, they were then plastered over with a solid SP show, so that we just saw them race. Even F1, which is probably far more arcane and aloof from the general public than horse-racing, manages to show the cars, discuss team tactics, and interview leading lights before the green light goes on.
Click to expand...

RUK is excellent in my book. Almost guaranteed to be two competent, knowledgeable presenters on-track (I think Steve Mellish is absolutely excellent) and their pre and post race analysis is fairly thorough normally.

One thing that particularly annoys me about the BBC coverage is having Clare Balding wandering around the paddock before the race, strolling up two feet behind Michael Stoute and whispering "here we have Michael Stoute conversing with Ryan Moore and Khalid Abdullah," all the while trying to get in the prized word with connections who patently do not want to say anything to her. It's a joke really.
 
Last edited:
Well, each to their own, Tracks. Mellish and Hislop are competent and are knowledgeable - among others - but it's because they can't STOP being knowledgeable that they get on my nerves. Every horse doesn't warrant the same talk time - let's face it, how many times on here or any other forum do people go over every single horse in every single race? Never. Yet instead of seeing the horses in the paddock and gauging for ourselves whether they "look very well in their coat" or "has come to himself" (two particularly dim cliches for the racing outsider), we see them rattling away competing with each other for the most words per second. It's a close-run thing - they've dead-heated many times - but why waste our time with discussions of the 25-1 and much, much longer shots? Or, if we must, then why not show us the horses, and not the presenters? It's a question no-one's ever answered satisfactorily! I want to see the horses - I don't mind endless voice-overs which I can mute if I want to. What I don't want to see are two egos constantly massaging each other. That's my beef - it's not enough horse time, and far too much presenter presence. Rather like it annoyed you about Clare Balding - you'd probably have preferred her to have talked about the animals parading, as a voice-over, and seen them instead of the back of the heads of connections!

If we're to present racing to a wider audience, then let's start with the most basic part of the product - the horses!
 
Last edited:
Absolutely!

The horses are the stars of the show, but more often get relegated to a side slot while presenters and their guests hold the stage and air their knowledge. No wonder so many people cannot get interested in racing. All they get is a load of people talking shop, but never get to see what the shop is selling.

Another pet hate of mine was about the C4 presentation. At all the big meetings you would have Thommo prowling around the paddock - practically drooling - "... and here we have some famous football player ..." and having a ball celebrity-spotting - when there was a top-notch race coming up! Chatting up "celebrities" while the real stars of the show are parading and the racing fans are raring to see them. He once spent 2 minutes of airtime talking football with Alan Shearer at the Cheltenham Festival - just before the off of the Sun Alliance Chase (iirc). All we saw of the horses was the line-up and the race itself.

Also with C4 we only get shown the horses parading when they are actually lining up at the start, very rarely in real-time, the start of which coincided with C4 being sponsored by a major bookie. If you show the parade 1 minute before the off, fewer people can get a well-judged bet on in time, it is more likely to be a hasty last-minute decision and therefore a winner for the bookie.

RUK used to be as bad, but at least at many meetings now you get to see the horses, sometimes even in the saddling enclosure.

ATR still tends to cram as much in as possible and cover the pre-race line-up with a betting show - again, bookie money?
 
RUK is excellent in my book. Almost guaranteed to be two competent, knowledgeable presenters on-track (I think Steve Mellish is absolutely excellent) and their pre and post race analysis is fairly thorough normally.
Click to expand...

Entirely agree with that but I think others are overrating the appeal of the horses. to most people they all look about the same, are liable to kick out, shit everywhere and smell a bit

The biggest selling point is the overall atmosphere of a race meeting, but people can be drawn into it as a fascinating sport by presenters who convey the difficult detail in an interesting and enthusiastic manner. This was the key to the big success of c4's cricket coverage (whcih has been picked up by sky).

Im never quite sure why Thommo fawning over some fat northern car dealer and his hideous wife is expected to draw people to the game. You sometimes get the impression he wants to join in a roasting (not sure what that would do for viewing figures) More likely that it perpetuates the public image of a sport being populated by slightly bent thickos
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Im never quite sure why Thommo fawning over some fat northern car dealer and his hideous wife is expected to draw people to the game. You sometimes get the impression he wants to join in a roasting (not sure what that would do for viewing figures) More likely that it perpetuates the public image of a sport being populated by slightly bent thickos
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Im never quite sure why Thommo fawning over some fat northern car dealer and his hideous wife is expected to draw people to the game. You sometimes get the impression he wants to join in a roasting

do you mean spit roasting car dealers wife? :D

you dirty man:)

viewing figures might go up though:)
 
Last edited:
viewing figures might go up though:)
Click to expand...

It would be one for the internet really. Horrible thought Thommo with an unstable load

Anyway, in all seriousness, there is point here....

Is the sport better presnted as "general entertainment" for old biddies tucking into the sherry on a Sat afternoon or should it aim a bit higher? Always thought RUK is a great showcase and if free to air would draw in casual viewers
 
clivex said:
It would be one for the internet really. Horrible thought Thommo with an unstable load

Anyway, in all seriousness, there is point here....

Is the sport better presnted as "general entertainment" for old biddies tucking into the sherry on a Sat afternoon or should it aim a bit higher? Always thought RUK is a great showcase and if free to air would draw in casual viewers
Click to expand...

I think as far as the general public is concerned - Thommo is a plus..yes i know we don't want him because we are all serious fans and all..but he is good at what he does..he involves people..its important
 
clivex said:
Entirely agree with that but I think others are overrating the appeal of the horses. to most people they all look about the same, are liable to kick out, shit everywhere and smell a bit
Click to expand...

That was my point about giving the non-racing fan at the races basic information about what to look for in the paddock, how to read form etc, to let them feel involved.

Most of us will know how good it feels to work out a winner that has been overlooked by the press and bookies, so the new racegoer/viewer would feel about working out their first winner - "I can do this" - and the buzz gets them hooked.

More attention should be given to the horses, but information about what is going on and why it is happening should be more readily available too.

Maybe a short video shown in the bars before racing, with the affable Mr Thompson giving a few pointers about what to look out for in the form and in the paddock. No need to make it too technical, but enjoyable and above all - interesting.

People don't like to feel ignorant, so racing needs to stop assuming that everyone there knows one end of a horse from another or the formbook inside out.

I joined several of my colleagues at Cheltenham on the Wednesday this year. They go on that day every year, but this time decided that they would do a bit of work beforehand. So one lunchtime I went over the basics of the form pages in the Weekender, then at the races told them what to look for at the paddock and left them to it (not literally). They came away with about 2 winners and a few places apiece and all said that their experience had been enhanced by actually knowing a bit about what was going on and being able to make an informed decision.

A balance needs to be found between promoting the experience of a good time in a crowd of like-minded people and giving sufficient information to let people feel involved in the sport.

Camera angles could be adjusted in many places in order to show horses in full flight over a jump, or at full stretch to hold off a challenger on the flat. I had a brilliant seat at the National this year looking straight at the landing side of the Chair. Through my bins it looked as though the horses were actually coming right at me. Magic!

Problem is, how do you advertise a good atmosphere?

Some of the recent Cheltenham ads for the Open and Festival meetings have managed to sum it up with just the sound of a roaring crowd and drumming hooves, but as that has already been done another way to do it might be found.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top