I don't agree with the statement of giving jockies that don't respond to the media fines bar Ryan Moore they pretty much all give good interviews so you'd be fining the same bloke quite a lot and forcing him to do things he doesnt want to do because that's just who he is and we all have bad traits.
Not really, there are many facets to a persons job that they might not like doing as much as others. Tough!!! You can't pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the others.
As I also keep repeating to little avail it seems. I think it's important to differentiate between media interviews and sponsorship obligations. I just hope no one connected with Michael Stoutes yard bleats about lack of prize money in the next 12 months (if indeed it was he as reported, who refused to indulge Investec).
Coming to David's point, as Clive suggests, interviewing a horse ain't easy. (albeit you might get more out of one than someone like Ryan Moore). All these interview fills do is allow the product to flow more coherently on television, (
the, vital media afterall lets not forget) and anyone whose claiming that its an imposition is simply kow-towing to jockey propoganda.
I don't buy for one second that they're too tired. Do me a favour FFS. If Paula Ratcliffe can run 26 miles and give an interview, or a boxer get battered for 12 rounds and mumble away, or messers Nadal and Federer play for 5 hours in a Wimbledon final and both do gracious interviews, then someone who spends a few minutes on a horse can.
I seem to remember a 400m runner collapsing on the track and having a microphone put under their nose. Now as anyone knows, the 400m is a true lung burster and at current performance levels is right on the edge of the human range for what is a sprint. The athlete concerned gestured a bit and murmured for a bit of respite - "half a minute" she said, desparately gulping in oxygen. After about half a minute she nodded that she'd try and take questions, though clearly out of breadth she was trying to allow the viewer the chance to share in the achievement and in doing so was helping to promote her sport.
This excuse that they're at work etc is also bollox. Most normal people can multi task to the point that they can talk to someone whilst at work about an issue that isn't necessarily relevant to something they might be doing in 20 mintues time. Are we really being asked to believe that jockeys are uniquely consumed with racing that they can't do anythign other than think work, work, work. It's an excuse. What this excuse does to me is reveal a neurosis as to what they consider their work to be. Do they not consider the promotion of their sport and ensuring a decent PR for it to be part of their work? Clearly not. There's a difference between 'work' and 'a job', and jockeys don't seem to understand the notion of 'working the job'.
I'm afraid it's largely down to a sense of inbred arrogance within the industry, and limited horizons and perspectives brough about by entrenced conservatiove attitudes and a refusal to move with the times.
Top jockeys often have sponsors names on their silks these days. Do they turn that money away? You bet they don't. But they don't mind turning a camera away that would feature that sponsors name, and then they have the audacity to complain that prize money isn't high enough. Yet they don't seem to realise that sponsors will only provide money if they like the product, and that the product can attract exposure.
Any trainer with a bit of media savvy would use the opportunity as a two way dialogue and realise that being interviewed (often after a win lets not forget) actually puts them in the shop window. I wonder how pleased they'd be if only the horses name appeared in a racing result?
I'll give you a good example of someone who I thought handled it well on Imperial Cup day (and she hasn't been without her history in this area either) and that was VMW. She'd won a race and was being interviewed. She was asked a stock question by Thommo I think it was, about her prospects at Cheltenham next week.
She paused a little bit, and came within a whisker of giving a few names out but thought better of it. Instead she simply expressed the view that she felt she'd got a few well handicapped. Its a win/win scenario. She leaves a bit of a hint for punters to latch onto, the sense of privacy is protected (though in all likelihood owners would have known the targets and had their ante-post by then) and she's able to advertise her talents as a trainer. Not difficult and not particularly taxing was it?
