23rd December 2002 Turfcall`s Urgent Red Alert Wake Up Call to
British horseracing was sent out on February 14th 2001. Sheikh Mohammed sent his
out in the Racing Post on Monday December 11th 2002.
British racecourses take the view that they are the sole owners
of British horseracing, and the BHB`s future funding plan to acknowledge and
uphold all the rights of and for all horsemen/women, has been thrown on the
scrap heap. So basically British horseracing is at present at ground zero.
Because quite simply if true horsemen/women are not required and surplus to
requirements on the British horseracing stage, then it will fast become an empty
one. Already relegated to 4th division, and going down the shoot fast, without
the aid of Bin Laden.
Letters: Speech made business sense, Published: 20/12/2002 (Comment) Andrew
Appleby
Andrew Appleby applauds Sheikh Mohammed's Gimcrack speech
I CONGRATULATE Sheikh Mohammed on his Gimcrack Speech, especially that "a
new deal [for stable staff] should be made a priority".
Some will say: "It's easy for him - with all the oil money". I
believe, however, that Sheikh Mohammed is talking business sense - the same
business sense he has shown in developing Dubai so it does not solely depend on
oil revenue.
There are those who forget horseracing is a business, not least a leisure and
entertainment business, and that standard business principles apply.
Bill Adams of the Stable Lads' Association is almost correct in his comment that
"stable staff wages depend on what a trainer can charge any one
owner". I would suggest it is more correct to say: "the wages a
trainer can offer depend on what he charges".
It is financial suicide for trainers to charge low fees to attract extra owners.
This leads to more horses and more work - but probably fewer staff. This would
mean horses not being trained properly.
There are minimum fee levels and minimum wage levels. Equally, there are optimum
fee levels and optimum wage levels. (Some might say there are also Godolphin
levels).
Optimum levels mean that staff are paid a decent wage and there are adequate
staff/horse ratios and owners should be happy that they are getting value for
money.
If trainers and their financial advisers have calculated sensible cash flows
even they could be happy.
The National Trainers' Federation states 90 per cent of trainers pay above the
minimum agreed rates of pay. This ignores that these minimum rates of pay are
inadequate.
A gross example of such inadequacy is the agreement between the NTF and SLA that
overtime for stable staff is paid at the basic minimum rate - rather than time
and a quarter, half or double time.
How the Jockey Club and/or BHB came to condone this, I am at a total loss to
understand. How the SLA agreed to this, I do not know. It is neither in the best
interests of stable staff, nor the long-term interests of the industry.
Greg Nichols, BHB chief executive, hit the nail on the head when saying:
"The challenges we face . . . can only be resolved by co-operation and
goodwill among all sectors of our highly interdependent
industry".
Andrew Appleby
Newmarket
17th December 2002 Turfcall letter to the Editor of the Racing Post
The recent sad outcome in the lives of Dermot Browne and Graham Bradley must
surely serve to underline the sad plight that the regulators of British
Horseracing have allowed this industry to sink to. They have failed over four
decades to address so many of the real key issues at stake here, especially in
relation to horsemen/women. Sheikh Mohammed the world`s most influential
racehorse owner is clearly not impressed by the lines of contact, and has
recently voiced concerns over shortfalls – specifically - `LACK of
communication between racing’s elderly `think tanks` and the younger
generation responsible for operating the sport at shop floor level`. He said
that `Racing is controlled by old men and operated by young men who seldom speak
to each other. The communication is not there`. There is only so much one person
can achieve in a single days work. And if some of the other links in the chain
that set the system up are not functioning properly then that person’s days
work is blighted, and hampered, obstructed. How many such obstructions have
Browne and Bradley borne throughout their careers ? How much of what they have
tried and attempted to say has fallen on deaf ears ? How much of the guilt now
placed upon them is due to other peoples failures, along the road of life ? How
many more of the young ones just starting out are destined to the same fate ?
Chucked in at the deep end, IF, that is they stay the trip of the initial nine
week course at one of the two British Racing Schools. The question is, are they
entitled to be left to take all the blame for a system that has failed them,
time and time again ?
06th December 2002 Turfcall Blueprint: In response to the racecard data
rights issues:
There are several issues that need to be called into question here and it
would be far simpler if there was a British Horseracing Workforce Board working
upsides the British Horseracing Commercial Board, the Jockey Club, and John
Gosden President of the National Trainers` Federation. Perhaps then this whole
issue would quite naturally fall into and find its own true perspective,
retrieve the true balance and get many of these and other issues back on track.
Hopefully Peter Savill, Christopher Spence and John Gosden can now work to
remedy this imbalance, by putting together this New British Horseracing
Workforce Board, and sooner rather than later. The British Horseracing
Commercial Board now attempt to get a new and far fairer deal with the
newspapers, over the sale of what they claim are their racecard data rights to
price and sell. Surely these issues should be equally applicable to all
racecourses in relation to the racecards on sale at all tracks. The copyright
and the monies to be charged for this racecard data product is key information.
And should not be available virtually free of charge to either newspapers or
racecourses. These data monies by rights should belong to the performers not to
the racecourses or the newspapers. All racecard data copyright performance money
should belong to all those horsemen/women whose names make up these racecards.
All those who’s work puts and keeps the British horseracing show on the road
daily. And only when the stable staff horsemen/women are recognised properly and
included on all racecards for the huge contribution that they make each and
every day, will this be satisfactory. The rightful place for these names should
be included upsides the runner that they present at the races, on each and every
racecard both in the newspapers and in the racecourse racecards. As in:
Thoroughbred breeders recognition, owners/horses, trainers, stable staff,
farrier`s, starting stall handlers and jockey`s as in horsemen/women,
recognition. So if the Sun newspaper can pay and continue to only pay £10.00 a
day for such key data they are financially exploiting each and every member of
the British Horseracing Workforce. By rights this is a matter only for a British
Horseracing Workforce Board. The sooner this board can be formed the better. To
ensure that both the pricing of this product is fair and that the monies charged
for this product go into the pockets of all those who actually earn it. As
Sheikh Mohammed claims `British Horseracing regulators have a mountain to
climb`. Turfcall urges them all to accept just how urgent it is to form a
British Horseracing Workforce Board, to be inclusive a full and complete
representation with a seat for each and every section of the workforce. Only
then will a huge step upwards in their daunting climb be realised.
5th December 2002 Thursday Racing Post. David Ashforth over racecard data
issue. NTF warns racecourses they must act fairly.
Britain`s trainers yesterday backed BHB chairman Peter Savill and warned
racecourses of the consequences of failing to act fairly towards owners,
trainers and stable staff. In a statement, John Gosden, president of the
National Trainers` Federation, warned racecourses:`As trainers, unless we are
fully satisfied that the racecourses are prepared to act fairly in the interest
of owners, trainers and stable staff, we may well advocate a system similar to
that in the USA, under which a contract has to be signed and agreed between
racecourses and owners and trainers before a race meeting can take place. That
agreement has to fully satisfy the owners and trainers that the participation of
their horses is equitably remunerated.` Gosden declared: `The NTF is fully
supportive of Peter Savill. He fought long and hard for the benefit of racing
and gained a much-improved picture deal, and he negotiated tirelessly with the
betting industry and has secured a solid future for racing. Once the Jockey Club
has rid itself of its regulatory role, then, as owner of the RHT, it will become
commercially the most powerful group in the RCA, and can therefore take a strong
lead for the industry.
04th December 2002 Wednesday Racing Post. David Ashforth talks with Peter
Savill over racecard data rights issue:
Peter Savill Quote `It is hard to believe that anyone thinks that £10.00 a
day is the right price to charge the Sun for the data which enables it to
produce a daily racing section that drives a substantial part of its
circulation.
29th November 2002 Mark Johnston Friday Racing Post Comment Racecard data
rights issue:
Johnston says: ` Blackmail, according to my dictionary - the big, fat one
that takes its name from that university town near Newbury –is the act of
forcing someone to do something by using threats or manipulation. So how can
Marcus Townend of the Daily Mail, or anyone else, be accusing the BHB of
blackmail over the data rights issue ? All the BHB did was to try to put a price
on one of its products - the data. It is no different to any other
supplier/consumer relationship. Lets face it, the media needs and wants the BHB’s
data and all of us in racing want the media to have it and to print as much of
it as possible in as prominent a position as possible`.
13th November 2002 Racing Post. Roy Briggs and Bill Barber. Lungo leads
chorus of trainers in angry calls for BHB voice.`
Trainers across Britain have given their support to Len Lungo after the
leading Scottish trainer vented his frustration over what he described as `one
of the worst-run industries in the country.` Lungo blasted fixture planning as a
`scandal`, criticised the National Trainers Federation’s lack of
representation on the BHB board, and gave his support to suggestions that
trainers would consider withdrawing entries in protest at their treatment. Lungo
said : `This sort of race planning is an absolute scandal and something the NTF
has been trying to put right for years. Every time we attend a meeting with
race- planners or other policy makers they thank us for drawing attention to
these problems, assure us they are taking our observations on board and then do
absolutely nothing`. `Not only are the logistics difficult this coming Saturday
for trainers like myself with possible runners at most meetings, but finding
possible riders is also becoming increasingly hard.` Lungo added his weight to
calls for radical action to ensure trainers` voices are heard. He said `Certain
high profile trainers` have indicated we will have to consider withdrawing
entries and have some non-racing days if nothing changes for the better, and I
am fully behind them.` Yorkshire trainer Peter Beaumont was in total agreement
with Lungo`s call for the NTF to have a voice on the BHB board. He said: `It’s
a good job the likes of Len and Tom Tate do push for things on our behalf. I am
fully behind his call for BHB representation. Lambourn colleague Charlie Mann
echoed his view. `I`m behind Len all the way,` he said. `It`s a very good idea
to have BHB representation. There are things rushed through that we don`t even
know about, including these new bumpers for young horses.` Lincolnshire trainer
Michael Chapman said:`I go along entirely with Len’s campaign. I`m amazed that
we are still not represented.` Gold Cup-winning trainer Henrietta Knight backed
Lungo`s criticism of fixture planning. She said: `People have complained but not
much has altered. It`s difficult to know where to start. Nobody seems to have
taken a lot of notice of what the NTF says. We discuss things and pass things at
our meetings but don`t get much further.` NTF chief executive Rupert Arnold
acknowledged that the sense of frustration amongst trainers had led some to call
for withdrawal of entries and non-race days. He said: `Comments like that
illustrate a sense of acute frustration. They are made in a number of different
contexts, not just fixtures.` Arnold also agrees with Lungo`s view on fixture
planning, although he believes the fault lies with racecourses and the
allocation system itself rather than the BHB. He said: `The current fixture
allocation system is very inflexible . Unless there is a will to talk between
racecourses then nothing seems to happen`. Arnold fears that the ongoing Office
of Fair Trading inquiry into racing could exacerbate the problem. Turfcall adds:
Sir John Kemball chief executive of Racing Welfare speaking in regard to the
British horseracing industry said: ` This industry is fraught with inadequacies,
leaving the government and charities to pick up the pieces of racing`s neglect.`
That there remains to be such neglect is indeed a scandal of major proportions.
Why should a charity be left to pick up the pieces of this multi-million pound
British horseracing industry … ? The British racecourses need to take on board
their responsibilities in full toward the welfare and rights of all
horsemen/women who work daily on their tracks, because without them their stage
is an empty one. There should not only be a voice for both National Hunt and
Flat Trainers on the BHB board, but a voice each for the following as well, Stud
Management, Grade A Horsemen/Women, Jump Jockeys, Flat Jockeys, British Racing
Schools, British Racing Further Education, and Racing Welfare.
19th October 2002 On Champions Day, Turfcall calls the attention of all
parties right across the board who are daily involved in British horseracing.
In particular the present Jockey Club and BHB regulators, the Government to
include The Office of Fair Trading and the RCA. Turfcall’s stark reminder
states that no trainer can or should be expected to train a string of
thoroughbred racehorses with only a team of learner/student, handler/riders. And
at no time should any professional personnel whilst at work on racecourses be
exploited by same. All those professionally employed Grade A and B
horsemen/women who’s daily skill and art in all the many and varied
complexities involved and needed in the handling and riding out the many
thoroughbred racehorses in training every day in Britain who in the main remain
to be ignored underpaid and of no recognised account. Their generosity over
decades is both dying out and running out. They have and do actually keep ` This
Brave Old Game of British Horseracing` on the road daily for all to play.
Hanging on in there still through all adversity, and now at a very low and
dangerous ebb, but highlighted centre stage today at Newmarket the home of
British horseracing for Champions Day. Where on Warren Hill the gallops have
been in use since 1660 and have never seen a plough over all this time, clearly
underlines just what kind of excellence is necessary if this sport is to be
allowed to find its true balance and to enable it to exist in its rightful form.
If there are to ever be the likes of Grade A, Frank Conlon and Co around to keep
things sound for the future. The regulation of British horseracing remains at
present unbalanced and out of order on several counts especially this one.
Suitable qualified regulators now need to be found to take on board their
responsibilities in this regard and to sanction the changes and adjustments so
urgently needed NOW to ensure the decades of neglect are terminated as a matter
of dire urgency. To be fully and properly monitored as key, top priority, for
British racing regulators. All horsemen/women should be graded from
Learner/Student/Apprentices through to work riders, jockeys and trainers. Folly
indeed is the present attitude of the regulating powers that be in British
horseracing who continue to make a big mistake in taking the view and stating
that if prize money is improved then perhaps this will magically transform
everything into its rightful place … with the well worn out statement that
some monies may then filter down through to the personnel that they inaccurately
lump together as of no account under the term `Stable Staff ….` If British
horseracing is to be allowed to reach its true potential then regulators who
have made this statement and hold this view are not fit to hold any position of
authority over this sport any longer because they are stifling the very living
daylights out of British horseracing and blighting its very existence on a daily
basis. We have heard an awful lot over the last years whilst many have worked to
attempt to get the politics, regulation and funding for the future of British
horseracing back on track to ensure its future success and wellbeing. The
Attheraces channel launched last May gives us all daily the chance to share the
fascination and intrigue that is horseracing now on a World scale. We must not
loose, we have to win this one … This is Turfcall’s prayer on Newmarket’s
Champions Day, that together we may find the winning formula and ensure that
there are no losers. Eleven runners contest the Champion Stakes conquered this
afternoon by Storming Home(Lass Alison) and Michael Hills trained by Barry Hills
and owned by Maktoum Al Maktoum an 8/1 shot. A colt that has posed Barry many
questions, that he found the answer in concentrating to ensure that this colt
regained his confidence has surely paid dividends, congratulations to all for a
fascinating and exciting race.
06th October 2002 BBC Live Panorama 10.15pm to 11.15pm on `The Corruption of
Racing`
An eight-month investigation into the world of British horseracing uncovering
a decade of corruption and questioned whether the Jockey Club is fit to regulate
the sport. The resulting documentary met such fierce resistance from the racing
industry that two High Court actions had to be fought before the film could be
broadcast.
24th September 2002 In memorial to the tragic death of Rebecca Davies who
sadly lost her life whilst riding out second lot for James Given this morning.
Rebecca`s young life cut short so abruptly, once again highlights the need
for the British horseracing establishment to give further support to the
trainers in bringing along new young horsemen and horsewomen.
21st September 2002 Turfcall wishes the Liberty and Livelihood March in
London tomorrow full Government support for all their country needs to be
understood and acted upon as a matter of urgency.
To-morrow the Liberty and Livelihood March of the Countryside Alliance go to
London to stick up for the human rights and welfare needs of all country people.
Well done to all and may your endeavours and courage ensure that this Government
and indeed any other Government will never fail you or let you down ever again.
06th September 2002 Turfcall letter to the editor of Racing Post
Newbury racecourse adjacent to a considerable number of long established
training areas was noted to be one of 6 of the worst most inhospitable
racecourses for staff in the Racing Post on May 29th. Why should horsemen/women
have to pay anything whilst on duty at racecourses ? For either food,
accomodation or suitable facilities for all their wellbeing needs whilst at work
there ? All racecourses should surely be subjected to yearly MOT`s, then if they
are found to be unable to provide safe and suitable facilities they will be
closed down until they are able to rectify the situation.
28th August 2002 Turfcall letter to the editor of the Racing Post
Goodwood Celebration Mile Saturday August 24th Tillerman/Hughes, Where or
When/Darley. What a sad state British horseracing has been allowed to sink to.
Hughes/Tillerman states quote `I shut the door on him (Where or When/Darley )
but that’s what I am paid to do. For me, you could see through the race I was
poaching him, ready to pounce. If they (Where or When/Darley) don’t like it,
tough`. If you can’t win, cheat to win, no matter how or who you duff up in
the process ..? This is perfectly acceptable is it ... the done thing ... in the
present system of things ?
27th August 2002 Racing Post excerpts from Paul Haigh’s Feature quote:
` That Hughes Goodwood ride`. `Terry Mills was right. If we’re going to
allow that sort of tactic, someone is going to get hurt`. ` Inconsistent
stewards are simply asking for trouble`… `Most of what we columnists write is
twaddle …. Just occasionally, however, an issue crops up about which we
actually feel quite strongly – and then we find ourselves confronted by the
problem of how to convey our seriousness, wringing our hands as we do so at the
thought of all that facetious coat-trailing in the past. I feel very strongly
about Richard Hughes’s ride on Tillerman in the Celebration Mile at Goodwood
on Saturday, so strongly it quite surprises me and makes me pleased in a way
that genuine indignation is still not quite beyond my scope. The idea that we
should be cheering Hughes for his professionalism offends me really deeply.
Incitements to scoff at the righteous wrath of his victim’s owner-trainer
offend me just as much. …. It was fairly obvious that Where Or When should
have won, and my first inclination was to blame Kevin Darley. It was only when
they showed the head-on that I realised what had happened, and disappointment
turned to outrage. It wasn’t that I hoped to profit from any decision by the
stewards to demote Tillerman, as Where Or When finished fourth. It was that I
hoped that justice would be done, and then- not entirely to my surprise, I have
to admit, because I lost all confidence in our stewards years ago- I realised
that not just was it not going to be done but the miscreant was actually going
to get applause…. ` Haigh goes on to describe further detail, culminating with
his paragraph ` Lets get this straight. It was the shutting of the door (Hughes/Tillerman)
on (Darley/Where Or When) not the refusal to open it, that was the crime. Terry
Mills was right. Tillerman should have been disqualified and Richard Hughes
stood down. Just at the moment I can’t feel much respect for anyone- steward,
fellow hack or famous ex-jockey- who’s unable to see that`.
20th August 2002 Turfcall letter to the editor of the Racing Post
Peter Savill (Racing Post Thursday August 15th) Savill is not ensuring a fair
fundamental structure, neither is he balancing the integrity of the sport. He
continues on after all this time to do nothing at all to sort out the rights of
all those horsemen/women who daily make this British horseracing industry tick,
Savill has not acted at all in this regard, leave alone swiftly and fairly as he
states. Sheikh Mohammed states: `You have a mountain to climb`. So when are you
all, Jockey Club included at Portman Park going to begin ... that is what we are
all wanting to know ? A very good starting point would be for you all to pay
attention to the words of Dale Gibson (Racing Post Monday August 5th) quote:
`See the shit we have got to put up with ?` says Gibson with a shake of his
head. Tom O`Ryan quote `The wafer -thin rider is a deep thinker. He`ll tell you
why he valets himself to save up to £4,000 per year: why racecourses should pay
appearance money to those putting on the show ...who almost daily have to put up
with inedible and unsuitable food, antiquated and inadiquate facilities.` What
other industry would get away with paying weekly remuneration to skilled
handlers/riders and work riders of just £10 to £20 per week more than the
weekly rate paid to student /learners ? (To include all overtime plus being
expected to train the beginners as well as see to their own work ... all at the
same time ...) Turfcall calls for a New Board to act upsides both the Jockey
Club and the BHB in this department a team of top proven qualified
horsemen/women only . Portman Park have shut the door on Eddie Hide over the
last 20 years, how about attempting to opening it now ?
27th July 2002 Turfcall calls attention to the concerns expressed by Sheikh
Mohammed about British horseracing
On Saturday, Sheikh Mohammed spoke up during a BBC TV Grandstand interview
with Clare Balding at Ascot recorded at Godolphin HQ in Newmarket to mark the
25th anniversary of his first winner in Britain. As reported by Rodney Masters
in the Racing Post quote the Sheikh voiced concerns over shortfalls -
specifically LACK of communication between racing`s elderly `think tanks` and
the younger generation responsible for operating the sport at shop floor level.
This has been highlighted by Sheikh Mohammed as one of racing`s more worrying
shortfalls. The world`s most influential racehorse owner is clearly not
impressed by the lines of contact. He said that Racing is controlled by old men
and operated by young men who seldom speak to each other. The communication is
not there. Asked what improvements to racing he had witnessed over that period,
and what further improvements he considered were required, the Sheikh responded
that he had noticed a lack of improvement. He said: They have a mountain to
climb. I`d like to see racing made more friendly, so it can be passed on from
generation to generation. That hasn`t happened here ... To close the Sheikh
said: - I love my horses. I talk to my horses. They tell me more than my
trainers. The trainers always try to please the owner. The horse will tell you
the truth. The Sheikh`s comments seem to give great support to the The Turfcall
Blueprint dated February 14th 2001. Sheikh Mohammed is virtually underlining
exactly the Urgent Red Alert Warning that Turfcall has been actively
proclaiming.
22nd July 2002 Turfcall responds to The Tote Issue
Turfcalls further reminders come with the following reference points on the
Tote issue pointed out by Peter Walwyn in the Racing Post on Monday July 15 2002
by highlighting Alan Byrne writing in the Racing Post on July 18th 2001 quote:
-Having traded for years on the Slogan -Our profits stay in racing- The Tote is,
not surprisingly, keen to make the amount it contributes to racing look as
significant as possible. But in reality its true -contribution- amounts to not
much more than one per cent of the Tote’s annual £509 million turnover. About
one third of the claimed contribution of £12,285 million comes from betting
levy collected directly from the punter. On this basis, William Hill and
Ladbrookes are far bigger contributors to racing (although the Tote voluntarily
pays levy at a marginally higher percentage rate) and more of their profits
-stay in racing- . Levy payments should be seen as a fee for use of a product
(horseracing), not as a -contribution- . The Tote also lists its laudable
sponsorship expenditure £2,4 million as part of its contribution, although much
of this should be regarded as commercial arrangement designed to establish
branding and to generally boost the business. Similarly, the single biggest item
listed under its -contribution to racing- the payment of £5,7 million to
racecourses an average of less than £100,000 per annum per racetrack is in
part, a commercial transaction, necessary if the Tote is to operate on British
racecourses. So, whatever, the £12,285 million is, it is most certainly not a
-contribution to racing- . Ends. David Ashforth writes in the Racing Post on
Wednesday January 9th 2002 quote: -Jones to face grilling at BHB over rights- .
Tote chairman Peter Jones will appear before the BHB board at 3pm today to
defend the Tote’s controversial decision to reject the BHB’s terms for the
purchase of data and picture rights. Jones who will be accompanied by Tote chief
executive John Heaton and finance director Tom Phillips, is expected to be
subjected to hostile questioning by Peter Savill, the BHB chairman, and other
board members. Savill, himself a member of the Tote board, has expressed outrage
at the Tote’s decision, which he has described as -the most astonishingly bad
commercial decision I can remember- . Ends Howard Wright reports in the Racing
Post on Thursday January 10th 2002 quote -Jones in walkout as row over Tote
stance deepens - ….. Ends. (further interesting factors therein.) Charlie
Brooks writing in the Daily Telegraph on Monday January 21st 2002 quote -Of all
the shenanigans that have been going on to prevent Peter Savill from getting a
fair deal for British horseracing, the Tote’s behaviour is far and away the
most deceitful. By refusing to buy live pictures for two per cent of their
turnover they have well and truly stabbed the industry they should be wholly
answerable to in the back. The Tote exists to channel betting profits into
racing for the welfare of the sport. Many of their customers only patronise them
because they at least know their losses are going to support the sport they
love-. Not so … Charlie Brooks ends with this quote: -Speculation as to the
personal ambitions of the few who run the Tote will doubtless continue. It will,
of course, only ever be that until they publish the figures that prove they are
entitled to betray racing and the BHB. Until then, they can be rightly judged
the -Judases of horse racing-. Ends.
21st July 2002 Turfcall responds to Rodney Masters interview with Peter
Walwyn (Racing Post 15th July 2002 page 6).
Peter Walwyn, chairman of the Lambourn Trainers Association, identified 6
Errors of Judgement that had blighted racing. Turfcall highlights in particular
the 2nd of these concerning Sale of the Tote. The government has the effrontery
to introduce a Bill to put the Tote up for sale when it is not its to sell. It
should be given to racing, for the good of racing, which is what it was
originally intended for by the well-meaning people who invested their money to
get it up and running.
15th July 2002 Turfcall email to Racing Review re. Group´s First Meeting
Tomorrow 16th July 2002
BHB chairman Peter Savill is to formally open the Racing Review Group meeting
tomorrow, the biggest review of racing for several years. Turfcall draws to the
attention of all those personnel attending this meeting that they make reference
to the Turfcall blueprint and appendices INFORMATION and NEWS as set out on
Turfcall website at www.turfcall.co.uk Turfcall call´s for a New British
Horseracing Board to be drawn up to work upsides both the Jockey Club and the
BHB´s Commercial board, as a matter of dire urgency (perhaps to be called the
BH Workeforce Board) and to be run by top proven horsemen/women only. A few key
factors for the quick reference of personnel attending this meeting, further
detail can be found on the Turfcall website www.turfcall.co.uk Excerpt taken
from Turfcall website home page link NEWS June 30. 2002 Racing Post Howard
Wright Comment page 13: Wounded Racecourse Association ready to shatter
Savill´s BHB vision. Track officials feel they have been battered from every
which way possible - On Tuesday the 59 members of the Racecourse Association
will vote on whether to back a restructuring of the BHB Board, that would reduce
the number of sectional interests around the table and replace them with BHB
senior executives and more independents. A tighter, more focused, more
professional board is essential- all things being equal. Turfcall's response is
that nothing has a hope of being equal until there is a NEW professional board
of top proven horsemen/women to act upsides both the Jockey Club and the BHB’s
Commercial Board. Top leadership in this department is vital - key. To continue
on to ignore the workforce their fair professional remuneration rights, safety
and full training needs is a deception of major proportions. Ends. Excerpt taken
from Turfcall website home page link NEWS. June 22nd 2002 Factors of interest
Howard Wright Racing Post on Tuesday June 4th page 7 wrote about Tristram
Ricketts Secretary General BHB call for the industry to pull together. The BHB’s
longest-serving senior executive, secretary general has moved to pour oil on
racing’s troubled waters by urging the industry to engage in progressive and
constructive dialogue for the best interest of the sport. Ricketts said: The
industry can only work to maximum effect if all those who contribute to the show
do so within a forward looking framework of trust . ….. Turfcall further
reminded Ricketts of a previous quote of his: It’s vital that racing has
adequate numbers of well trained properly remunerated staff with the skills to
do an essential job. Turfcall highlighted further to Ricketts in a letter dated
June 5th Counting the cost of neglecting the staff as follows: Trainers have
been left in the position over four decades of being unable to pay proper wages
to the handlers/ riders that go to make up their teams, with the result that now
there are hardly any handlers/ riders left in the category of Grade A and B
staff. Nothing has been done to put this right to date, or if it has very little
indeed. The whole internal structure of British horseracing is a disgrace. Bill
Adams and Lady Burnham are ill equipped to deal with a problem as huge as this
one. How can any of the few personnel that are left possibly have any trust
whatsoever in either the BHB, the Jockey Club, the Racecourses, or the
Government who have housed the industry at the Home Office under Gambling over
decades ? New Grades Wage Structures as set out by the British Horseracing
Establishment came from the Racing Welfare Head Office in Newmarket in March
2002 Issue No. 65 and stated what the new remuneration rates for Grades A, B. Ci
and Cii. and D staff were to be as from February 1st 2002 in what was termed as
the consolidated minimum rates of pay to therefore include payment for weekend
working: Grades Ci and Cii learners/students and D beginners remunerations, were
only £10 and £20 short of Grade A and B staff which to Turfcall makes a total
mockery of all the work carried out daily by Grade A and B horsemen/women
handlers riders and work riders. Ends. Excerpt taken from Turfcall website home
page link NEWS. June 21st 2002 Racing Post factors of interest page 19 Mark
Johnston: Staff need wages not a share of prize – money: Keith Brown’s
proposal, that stable staff should receive a greater percentage of prize money,
may sound like a vote winner for any up and coming racing politicians who want
to latch on to the idea and form a bandwagon, but it won’t be getting my
support. Turfcall’s response to this is: The word stable staff is a foggy
description of the daily contribution that so many make whilst keeping the
British horseracing game on the road for others to play. All key horsemen/women
of a high calibre should get their rightful share in all this. They both earn it
and deserve it, so why is it that they do not get their fair dues ? For far too
long they have been excluded. They should most certainly receive a far greater
share in the prize money and further both the credit and full monitory reward
for and when the animal in their care wins or is placed. There are further many
other key areas in which they are loosing out. No jockey however good he may or
may not be can put right on the day what has been going wrong daily at home. The
glaring examples appearing daily on racecourses over a long period of time are
evident for all to see. No trainer can train thoroughbred yearling and two year
old’s with learner riders. Turfcall calls for a new British Horseracing Board
to work upsides both the Jockey Club and the BHB in this area and calls into
question many other areas that need setting fair. Who did Mark Johnston put on
to care for all the daily needs of the yearling colt Fight Your Corner ? We are
told that Johnston purchased this colt as a yearling for £14,500. Who brought
this colt along as a yearling …? Who tutored him daily and rode him away as a
yearling ? Who throughout all those vital early days prep work for the track was
working with this colt daily ? Who rode him out each day ? Who rode him work
each week ? How many workouts was this colt given each week throughout his two
year old training period and who rode him in this work ? We are told in May/June
2002 that this colt by now a three year old was sold for a figure of around £2
million guineas. What did the Grade A and Grade B horsemen/women personnel
employed in Mark Johnston’s team responsible for this colts success receive
for their part in all this ? Are we allowed to know ? Ends. Excerpt taken from
Turfcall website home page link NEWS. June 17th 2002 Excerpts taken from
Turfcall The History of the British Jockey Club. Today 2002 the Jockey Club’s
impressive Newmarket properties and gallops, can be seen very much as then. The
original leather chairs where no posterior’s are allowed to sit, the walls
lined with horsehair, a treasure trove of priceless art and memorabilia, life
size caricatures, horse shoe desk, and “The Mat” for those jockey’s
unfortunate enough to have to appear before the Stewards. All run today under
the management of The Jockey Club Estates a business which pays for itself, and
who’s primary objective and drive commitment to British horseracing remains we
are told as in the 1750’s. But are they … ? One is left to ponder …? Some
serious questions still need urgent answers is the view of Turfcall. Glaring
factors that are not even being addressed leave alone anything being done to set
them to rights … what for instance is to become the lot of the grassroots
workforce the trainers teams …? What is left of this workforce … that is …
a workforce long brought to its knees through total neglect and misunderstanding’s
beyond all reason. The BHB were elected to diplomatically represent all parts of
this industry, to care for the workforce, the trainer’s teams, all those
horsemen and horsewomen who’s skill and art in daily care and nurturing of
these beautiful young thoroughbred creatures, put and keep the show on the road
daily, the political and the commercial side of the industry. The Jockey Club
passed over responsibility to the BHB in regard to handicapping, the fixture
list, race planning and the commercial side of things. Whilst they themselves
remain to focus on what they do best … regulations as set up initially in 1752
to ensure that British horseracing continues to be run fairly and safely and to
remain fully committed to the wellbeing of racing as a whole. Over the last four
decades as from the 1960’s the trainers have been left in the position to be
unable to pay fair remuneration to their team personnel, leading to many being
forced to leave their careers in racing altogether. That shortly things may
improve and money will filter it is hoped … we are told down to the trainers
team personnel is a statement that is totally unacceptable. If it means that
some of those Stubbs paintings which hang in the Jockey Club rooms in Newmarket
be sold so be it, but monies have to be found to set now the proper standard and
structure for Grade A and Grade B staff, to focus on who they actually are and
to ensure correct remuneration and recognition for the trainers teams personnel
to have a proper life and full recognition as to the skill and art of the
invaluable work they perform. With a thorough five year initial training program
for the youngsters starting out. And further specialist courses in all key areas
of expertise thereafter. Now in 2002 Turfcall takes the view that the Jockey
Club and the BHB as they stand today are still far from the mark of addressing
fairly and properly the conditions rights and remuneration reward for the
workforce … who set this game up daily for others to play. Until they accept
the huge workload that they are placing on these teams of horsemen and
horsewomen they are living a lie. They are not upholding the main factors so
keenly adhered to in the 1750’s and they are not serving the wellbeing of
British horseracing in a balanced or fair way, they have much unfinished
business to see to, and unless they get down to it whole heartedly as top
priority their commercial racecourse stage will be an empty one. The Government
have until very recently housed their responsibilities to British horseracing at
the Home Office under GAMBLING, from which they have subtracted huge amounts of
money. This year 2002 they have moved it to the Department of Culture Media and
Sport. It is therefore clear that they have been responsible to a considerable
extent and over 4 decades of cashing in at other peoples expense. They have
completely overlooked the fact over and after all this time that there is
another side to British horseracing …THE SUPPLIERS OF THE HORSERACING PRODUCT.
15th July 2002 Racing Post News Howard Wright
- Heavy hitters gather for major review of racing tomorrow. This is the
e-mail that Turfcall has sent today to some of those who have been invited to
attend: they are Peter Savill chairman BHB who will chair this meeting of what
is termed The Racing Review Group. Three members of the current BHB board-
Julian Richmond-Watson ( Jockey Club nominee), Rhydian Morgan-Jones (Industry
Committee) and David Oldrey.(Jockey Club nominee and TBA) Greg Nichols BHB Chief
Executor. Chris Deuters vice president of the Racehorse Owners Association. Mark
Kershaw Newbury Racecourse managing director ( For RCA) Morag Grey Hamilton Park
chief execuor (RCA acting as an alternate attender).
14th July 2002 Racing Post News Graham Green.
– Rider: I was sure there would be an inquiry - An embarrassed JD Smith
held his hands up yesterday when admitting he had mistaken the winning post at
Beverley on Friday night.
14th July 2002 Racing Post News Rodney Masters.
– Hills calls for action over -lost race- at Beverley. Barry Hills will
contact the Jockey Club tomorrow demanding to know why no racecourse inquiry was
held into the defeat of the JD Smith-ridden Lakatoi at Beverely on Friday night,
with the trainer believing he has been the victim of jockey error for the second
time in four days. Hills hits out as jockey admits mistaking winning post. – I
am angry at losing another race through the jockey getting it wrong- Barry
Hills.
12th July 2002 Racing Post Letters. Trainer John Berry
With a reminder of Tony Culhanes ability in the saddle - one bad ride and 382
good ones -
12th July 2002 Racing Post Mark Johnston comment. Bouquet of the week.
I cannot believe it- a second bouquet for Attheraces. I think the program is
fantastic and they are bringing coverage of racing to a new level -
12th July 2002 Racing Post Greg Wood comment
Culhane error just the tip of complex problem - While Culhane was largely a
victim of his own poor judgement he was also in a sense a victim of the system
as well. Greg Wood is racing correspondent of the Guardian. Peter Thomas is on
holiday.
12th July 2002 Racing Post Mark Johnston.
- Handicap system the root cause of Culhane blunder.Can you think of any
other sport or event where the objective is to minimise the winning margin ? -
12th July 2002 Racing Post Mark Johnston - Sakhee -
- Would the Newmarket trainers who would have objected to Sakhee working
before racing on the July course please come forward and explain their reasoning
-
09th July 2002 The 4.15 Maiden Stakes 1m4f contest at Pontefract which
attracted nine runners
One of which the contestant partnership True Courage/Tony Culhane, attracting
wagers of over £25,000 to start at 8/13 favourite, trained by Barry Hills. True
Courage drew 10 lengths clear over 1f out, eased by Culhane throughout the final
furlong and looking the all over assured winner as he sauntered to the line only
to be caught by the flying Kahalah and T.E.Durcan. What an unbelievable
nightmare scenario. Tony Culhane says himself - I messed up in a major way - But
did he ? He may have been guilty of error misjudging the pace of Kahalah/Durcan,
but he does not have eyes in the back of his head. The perspective here to this
truly unbelievable outcome must surely be that both have survived to fight again
another day. There have been many other recent racecourse debacles of a far more
sinister nature that have gone overlooked or unnoticed, and remain without
penalty, incidences where horses have sadly lost their lives, through being
ridden without due care and attention - concentration to the matter in hand, and
awareness to the many possible imminent dangers that can present themselves as
greased lightning in any race … this contestant partnership True Courage/Tony
Culhane incident pales into insignificance by comparison, yet has been allocated
harsh punishment. Culhane now living through the repercussions of not only a bad
day at the office but a follow up penalty of the maximum 21-day suspension.
Likely to cost him in lost ride’s at £70.55 per ride, plus 7% share in any
prize money - a possible average of £5,500 per week ongoing over 21 days in the
region of £16,500 total loss of earnings.
04th July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News report.
Parker proposes BHB divorce from the racecourses. Sir Eric Parker, former
president of the Racehorse Owners’ Association, yesterday came up with a
solution to the Racecourse Association’s opposition to proposals for reforming
the BHB’s constitution - throw the courses off the BHB board. The radical
suggestion garnered some support from Parker’s fellow BHB director Rydian
Morgan-Jones, who said –I hope I am wrong, but if the racecourses are not
committed to working with the rest of the industry, one must question whether
they should be part of it - . Parker said he was speaking personally and not as
a board member of the BHB, Levy Board and Tote, but he is sure to have the
backing of the ROA council, on which he sits. He said – We have reached the
stage where we have to seriously consider whether having the RCA as a
shareholder in the BHB is really best for the future of horseracing. The BHB and
RCA should come to terms with reality. We have to ask whether it is practical,
or in anybody’s long term interests, that the two bodies should sit on the
same board. Parker added: -The RCA would become a very strong body, and a
streamlined BHB would function much better. A revision along these lines may
also find favour with the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT inquiry into several
aspects of racing is one of many issues of uncertainty that the RCA board has
put forward in defence of its view that the BHB structure review is going too
far at the wrong time. BHB executives were yesterday assessing the implications
of Tuesday’s decision by the racecourses, which will be discussed fully at the
BHB board meeting on July 15.
03rd July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News report.
Northern Racing and Racecourse Holdings Trust counter owners’ prize-money
criticism. Racecourse Holdings Trust and Northern Racing, the two groups that
came under the heaviest attack last week over their input to prize-money, have
hit back against criticism from Racehorse Owners Association president Jim
Furlong. At the ROA annual general meeting, Furlong said that although courses
had received £47 million from the Attheraces media deal, only £3 million had
gone into prize-money, and RHT had increased its contribution by just eight per
cent. Northern had put in nothing extra, he claimed.
03rd July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News and Comment.
Courses criticised for not sharing –morning money – Racecourses staging a
four-week series of late-morning Saturday meetings, beginning on July 20, have
come under fire for their apparent reluctance to share a related financial
incentive with the rest of the industry. The tracks-Warwick, Nottingham,
Worcester and Redcar-are being paid £20,000 each by the Betting and Marketing
Group, a joint operation involving the BHB, Levy Board and the bookmakers, aimed
at promoting UK horseracing in the face of the current betting shop alternative
from South Africa. However, Rupert Arnold, chief executive of the National
Trainers’ Federation, said yesterday that while the courses were being paid
for racing outside normal hours, there was not equal treatment for those
providing the horses ... - It’s muddled thinking. Racecourses are being
compensated for racing at this unusual time of day, but not those who provide
and ride the horses that put on the show. - Rhydian Morgan-Jones, chairman of
the BHB’s Industry Committee, has taken up the cause, and is looking for the
racecourses to at least put up appearance money, in the same way that applies
for Sunday racing. – It’s just not on, Morgan-Jones said – Racecourses are
being paid because they are being inconvenienced, but that applies equally to
the trainers, jockeys, stable staff and transporters. Saturday is usually the
biggest work morning of the week, so that effects everyone in the yard, and the
question of an earlier start for box drivers could effect their working hours
under European law. – We want to see some action from the racecourses,
otherwise they may find they are opening to empty starting stalls - .
03rd July 2002 Racing Post Graham Greene News report.
Jockey Club recruits new members in bid to protect racing’s integrity. The
Jockey Club’s integrity review committee , set up as part of the war against
malpractice in racing in 1999, has been bolstered by the addition of two high
profile new members, Ben Gunn, one time police chief constable of
Cambridgeshire, and criminal barrister Jeremy Gompertz both attended on Monday
when the committee reconvened following the lifting of reporting restrictions on
the trials involving the Brian Wright organisation.
03rd July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News report.
BHB plans in disarray as racecourses reject proposals. The BHB plans to
reorganise the constitution of racing’s governing body were in disarray last
night after 55 of Britain’s 59 racecourses voted against them. The BHB
blueprint requires unanimous approval from the organisation’s four
shareholders, of which the RCA is one. The others - the Industry Committee,
Jockey Club, and Racehorse Owners’ Association - had already signalled their
support. The strength of the support did come as a shock, according to RCA
chairman Keith Brown. The vast majority are totally opposed to amendments to the
articles of association, which have the effect of potentially widening the BHB’s
commercial scope, at a time when there are huge uncertainties over the likes of
the Office of Fair Trading inquiry, the end of racings future funding plan, the
termination of the Levy Board and the recent announcement of a strategic review
for the sport.
02nd July 2002 Racing Post Seb Vance News report.
Launch of Atthraces interactive TV betting service delayed again. The
Attheraces interactive betting service-allowing viewers to bet through their
television remote controls-will not launch until August two months later than
planned. The Tote appeared to be unconcerned yesterday at news of the delay.
Spokesman Andy Clifton said: -obviously we are disappointed that there is a
delay, but it is important that when it starts it works properly-.
02nd July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News report.
The BHB last night made an 11th - hour plea to Britain’s 59 racecourses to
ignore the advice of their trade association, in a bid to keep plans to reform
the governing body’s constitution on the rails.
01st July 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright News report.
Courses urged to spike Savill plans for BHB restructuring. Britain’s
racecourses are about to put the skids under plans, driven by BHB Chairman Peter
Savill, to reorganise the constitution of racing’s governing body. In a move
that will stun the rest of the racing industry, Racecourse Association directors
are recommending that when representatives of the individual tracks meet in
London to-morrow, they should instruct their BHB nominees to oppose proposals to
change the constitution. A –NO- vote by RCA members would scupper the current
process, since the BHB blueprint- which includes replacing sectional interests
on the board with senior BHB executives and more independent directors- requires
unanimous approval from its four shareholders, of which RCA is one. The others
are - the Industry Committee, Jockey Club and Racehorse Owners’ Association -
have already signalled their support for the new board. Why the RCA is worried.
The RCA board says this clause in the proposed BHB memorandum of association
sums up its concerns: 3. The objects for which the company [BHB] is established
are: (B) to carry on business as a general commercial company, and …has power
to carry on the following activities: (ii) organise exhibitions, performances
and sporting and other events for viewing by the public, any section of the
public, for private purposes or otherwise.
30th June 2002 Racing Post: Howard Wright Comment (page 13)
Wounded Racecourse Association ready to shatter Peter Savill’s vision for
the BHB. Track officials feel they have been battered from every which way
possible - On Tuesday the 59 members of the Racecourse Association will vote on
whether to back a restructuring of the BHB Board, that would reduce the number
of sectional interests around the table and replace them with BHB senior
executives and more independents. A tighter, more focused, more professional
board is essential - all things being equal. Turfcall’s response is that
nothing has a hope of being equal until there is a NEW professional board of top
proven horsemen/women to act upsides both the Jockey Club and the BHB’s
Commercial Board. Top leadership in this department is vital - key. To continue
on to ignore the workforce their fair professional remuneration rights, safety
and full training needs is a deception of major proportions.
28th June 2002 Racing Post Howard Wright reports on Racehorse Owners
Association Annual General Meeting
Furlong attacks courses for their stand on money. Britain’s racecourses
were put on notice yesterday that they can expect direct action from owners –
and possibly trainers and jockeys – if they fail to deliver what ROA president
Jim Furlong described as a proper benchmark – for prize–money. Furlong was
speaking after his address to ROA members at their annual meeting, where he
claimed that racecourses had allocated just £3 million to prize-money from the
£47 million handed over as an initial payment by Attheraces from the media
rights deal negotiated a year ago. Furlong went on to say- we’re not
advocating a strike, but we are saying that we will act as a catalyst for the
industry to come together to produce a benchmark that we wish to see applied.
The litmus test for the industry in the area of new funding is whether we are
getting a fair share for everyone. We are still putting our thoughts together,
but maybe the ROA will put up the numbers and get trainers jockeys and stable
staff to decide whether they are adequate. Furlong concluded - All this may seem
rather confrontational, but let there be no doubting the strength of feeling at
the ROA. The Racecourses, the BHB and the Levy Board have to play fair with us,
or there may be ructions that truly do alter racing’s whole playing field.
24th June 2002 Racing Post factors of interest page 7 Alastair Down.
Racing at the Crossroads. Racing must take necessary action now to ensure its
future health.
22nd June 2002 Racing Post factors of interest page 12 comment David
Ashforth.
Industry must face obligations over employees .... Interactive problem of
stable staff conditions.
22nd June 2002 Turfcall Calls for a NEW BRITISH HORSERACING WORKFORCE BOARD
Turfcall highlights that within the overall framework of governance for
British Horseracing a new body is needed to represent the interests of the
majority of the Racing Industry workforce because these interests are not
represented within any of the other governance bodies (the BHB, the Jockey
Club). Perhaps this new group could be called the British Horseracing Workforce.
Board. Turfcall invites ideas and suggestions the whole Horseracing industry
within Britain as to how the interests of the majority workforce can best be
represented. Howard Wright in the Racing Post on Tuesday June 4th page 7 wrote
about Tristram Ricketts Secretary General BHB call for the industry to pull
together. The BHB’s longest-serving senior executive, secretary general has
moved to pour oil on racing’s troubled waters by urging the industry to engage
in progressive and constructive dialogue for the best interest of the sport.
Ricketts said: The industry can only work to maximum effect if all those who
contribute to the show do so within a forward looking framework of trust . …..
Turfcall further reminded Ricketts of a previous quote of his: It’s vital that
racing has adequate numbers of well trained properly remunerated staff with the
skills to do an essential job. Turfcall highlighted to Ricketts in a letter
dated June 5th: Counting the cost of neglecting the staff as follows: Trainers
have been left in the position over four decades of being unable to pay proper
wages to the handlers/ riders that go to make up their teams, with the result
that now there are hardly any handlers/ riders left in the category of Grade A
and B staff. Nothing has been done to put this right to date, or if it has very
little indeed. The whole internal structure of British horseracing is a
disgrace. Bill Adams and Lady Burnham are ill equipped to deal with a problem as
huge as this one. How can any of the few personnel that are left possibly have
any trust whatsoever in either the BHB, the Jockey Club, the Racecourses, or the
Government who have housed the industry at the Home Office under Gambling over
decades ? New Grades Wage Structures as set out by the British Horseracing
Establishment came from the Racing Welfare Head Office in Newmarket in March
2002 Issue No. 65 and stated what the new remuneration rates for Grades A, B. Ci
and Cii. and D staff were to be as from February 1st 2002 in what was termed as
the consolidated minimum rates of pay to therefore include payment for weekend
working: Grades Ci and Cii learners/students and D beginners remunerations, were
only £10 and £20 short of Grade A and B staff which to Turfcall makes a total
mockery of all the work carried out daily by Grade A and B horsemen/women
handlers riders and work riders. Grade A remuneration as stated therein to be
£223.06 per week consolidated.
21st June 2002 Racing Post factors of interst page 19 Mark Johnston.
Staff need wages not a share of prize – money: Keith Brown’s proposal,
that stable staff should receive a greater percentage of prize money, may sound
like a vote winner for any up and coming racing politicians who want to latch on
to the idea and form a bandwagon, but it won’t be getting my support. Turfcall’s
response to this is: The word stable staff is a foggy description of the daily
contribution that so many make whilst keeping the British horseracing game on
the road for others to play. All key horsemen/women of a high calibre should get
their rightful share in all this. They both earn it and deserve it, so why is it
that they do not get their fair dues ? For far too long they have been excluded.
They should most certainly receive a far greater share in the prize money and
further both the credit and full monitory reward for and when the animal in
their care wins or is placed. There are further many other key areas in which
they are loosing out. No jockey however good he may or may not be can put right
on the day what has been going wrong daily at home. The glaring examples
appearing daily on racecourses over a long period of time are evident for all to
see. No trainer can train yearling and two year old thoroughbreds with learner
riders. Turfcall calls for a new British Horseracing Board to work upsides both
the Jockey Club and the BHB in this area and calls into question many other
areas that need setting fair. Who did Mark Johnston put on to care for all the
daily needs of the yearling colt Fight Your Corner ? We are told that Mark
purchased this colt as a yearling for £14,500. Who brought this colt along as a
yearling ? Who tutored him daily and rode him away as a yearling ? Who
throughout all those vital early days prep work for the track was working with
this colt daily ? Who rode him out each day ? Who rode him work each week ? How
many workouts was this colt given each week throughout his two year old training
period and who rode him in this work ? We are told in May/June 2002 that this
colt by now a three year old was sold for a figure of around £2 million
guineas. What did the Grade A and Grade B horsemen/women personnel employed in
Mark Johnston’s team responsible for this colts success receive for their part
in all this ? Are we allowed to know ?
17th June 2002 Turfcall History of the British Jockey Club
The exact date that the Jockey Club was founded in Britain is not known. But
it is thought to be around 1750 when a meeting in London is recorded, held at
The Star and Garter in Pall Mall, through the interests of major horse owners
… players … of the day, important and influential people who from the outset
formed a Club for themselves and their friends. Their passion and commitment to
horseracing was shown by the way they set out their markers to ensure organised,
fair racing took place on all occasions … they refused to let anyone get in
their way, and took action about this time against the then Prince of Wales …
this care earned and won the Club respect. As time evolved and by 1752 The Club
where drawn by changes into making and keeping the Rules of Racing and
organising the running of racing heralded as the regulatory authoritive body for
British horseracing. The Racing Calendar came into being and announced that
there was to be a race for horses owned by members of the Club to enter, to be
run on April 4th 1752. Today 2002 the Jockey Club’s impressive Newmarket
properties and gallops, can be seen very much as then. The original leather
chairs where no posterior’s are allowed to sit, the walls lined with
horsehair, a treasure trove of priceless art and memorabilia, life size
caricatures, horse shoe desk, and “The Mat” for those jockey’s unfortunate
enough to have to appear before the Stewards. All run today under the management
of The Jockey Club Estates a business which pays for itself, and who’s primary
objective and drive commitment to British horseracing remains we are told as in
the 1750’s. But are they … ? One is left to ponder …? Some serious
questions still need urgent answers is the view of Turfcall. Glaring factors
that are not even being addressed leave alone anything being done to set them to
rights … what for instance is to become the lot of the grassroots workforce
the trainers teams …? What is left of this workforce … that is … a
workforce long brought to its knees through total neglect and misunderstanding’s
beyond all reason. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw a period of bitter criticism of
the institution, many felt that the Jockey Club had to change. The Jockey Club
admit that they were not equipped to cope with all the problems that they were
having to face daily as the sole governing authority of British horseracing.
Which eventually led to the setting up of the The British Horseracing Board the
BHB in 1993. The BHB were elected to diplomatically represent all parts of this
industry, to care for the workforce, the trainer’s teams, all those horsemen
and horsewomen who’s skill and art in daily care and nurturing of these
beautiful young thoroughbred creatures, put and keep the show on the road daily,
the political and the commercial side of the industry. The Jockey Club passed
over responsibility to the BHB in regard to handicapping, the fixture list, race
planning and the commercial side of things. Whilst they themselves remain to
focus on what they do best … regulations as set up initially in 1752 to ensure
that British horseracing continues to be run fairly and safely and to remain
fully committed to the wellbeing of racing as a whole. Over the last four
decades as from the 1960’s the trainers have been left in the position to be
unable to pay fair remuneration to their team personnel, leading to many being
forced to leave their careers in racing altogether. That shortly things may
improve and money will filter it is hoped … we are told down to the trainers
team personnel is a statement that is totally unacceptable. If it means that
some of those Stubbs paintings which hang in the Jockey Club rooms in Newmarket
be sold so be it, but monies have to be found to set now the proper standard and
structure for Grade A and Grade B staff, to focus on who they actually are and
to ensure correct remuneration and recognition for the trainers teams personnel
to have a proper life and full recognition as to the skill and art of the
invaluable work they perform. With a thorough five year initial training program
for the youngsters starting out. And further specialist courses in all key areas
of expertise thereafter. Now in 2002 Turfcall takes the view that the Jockey
Club and the BHB as they stand today are still far from the mark of addressing
fairly and properly the conditions rights and remuneration reward for the
workforce … who set this game up daily for others to play. Until they accept
the huge workload that they are placing on these teams of horsemen and
horsewomen they are living a lie. They are not upholding the main factors so
keenly adhered to in the 1750’s and they are not serving the wellbeing of
British horseracing in a balanced or fair way, they have much unfinished
business to see to, and unless they get down to it whole heartedly as top
priority their commercial racecourse stage will be an empty one. The Government
have until very recently housed their responsibilities to British horseracing at
the Home Office under GAMBLING, from which they have subtracted huge amounts of
money. This year 2002 they have moved it to the Department of Culture Media and
Sport. It is therefore clear that they have been responsible to a considerable
extent and over 4 decades of cashing in at other peoples expense. They have
completely overlooked the fact over and after all this time that there is
another side to British horseracing …THE SUPPLIERS OF THE HORSERACING PRODUCT.
29th April 2002 Turfcall writes to Racing Post about Racecards
The letter from Claudia Fisher in the Racing Post on Saturday April 17th
thanking Aintree for printing the stable staff names on the racecards at this
years Grand National has highlighted the importance of recognition by name of
all stable staff at every race. It may interest Racing Post readers to know that
Turfcall, on behalf of whom I am writing, has recently followed up on this issue
by contacting both Weatherbys, the company who have the responsibility for
printing and distributing accurate racecards for every race, and with Trevor
Beaumont at the BHB who is responsible for managing the procedures that the BHB
requires Weatherbys to follow. . May I suggest that if anyone wishes to add
their voice to the campaign to ensure that the names of stable staff are printed
on racecards for every race, they register their support on the Turfcall.co.uk
website. We will then ensure that Trevor Beaumont is informed of the level of
support for this simple change which we expect will be extremely popular with
racegoers and stable staff alike. For and on behalf of Turfcall J. Margaret
Clarke Kingsclere Newbury Berkshire.
25th April 2002 Racing Post Letters Quote
2002 Letters to the Editor Quote “Boost conditions for existing staff J.
Margaret Clarke on the way to attract more stable workers. Lady Burnham’s call
for more stable staff, (Racing Post Monday April 22nd 2002) without explaining
any specific measures that the BHB will be taking to facilitate this, is
distracting attention from the reasons why there is a currently a shortage.
Surely it is time to focus exclusively on improving pay and conditions for
existing staff. This would attract new entrants and, more importantly, boost
morale and productivity. For and on behalf of Turfcall Kingsclere Newbury
Berkshire”.
13th April 2002 Racing Post Quote David Ashforth
Welcome to the golden age of British horseracing. On May 1, insanity
excluded, punters will walk into betting shops to be faced by full coverage of
British racing, because a deal will have been done between the racing and
betting industries. It will be the final piece in the jigsaw that, once
completed , heralds a new era for horseracing in Britain – the best ever. An
era when everyone is better off – stable staff, racecourse staff, trainers,
owners, racegoers, punters, television viewers, bookmakers, and the Government.
Reaching agreement on the sale of pictures to the betting industry is more
difficult, but it will be inexcusable if a deal is not reached by May 1. Last
year racing received about £88m from bookmakers and media companies. Soon, it
will be receiving at least £160m, approaching a doubling of annual income. That
is the quantum leap that racing has been persuing. The Office of Fair Trading
may yet play a part, but the elusive commercial agreement between the racing and
betting industries should be reached this month, and outstanding legal actions
discontinued. When the next debate begins, about spending the money, I hope that
racing’s powerful sectional interests will not suddenly forget their public
acknowledgements of the need to improve the position of stable staff, whose
voice is much weaker. Richard Caborn, the Sports Minister, told the House of
Commons on Wednesday April 10th: ‘There can be no excuse if these additional
funds do not contribute to improve pay and conditions for stable staff. I will
continue to keep a close eye on it’. I hope he does’.
08th April 2002 Racing Post Quote David Ashforth.
Helping National hero come to terms with celebrity status ... WHILE Bindaree’s
owner, trainer and jockey were receiving their plaudits and prizes outside
Aintree’s weighing room, Sam Wood , his stable hand, was contentedly walking
the Grand National winner around the small sand circle outside his secluded
stable. Nigel Twiston-Davies must surely feel fortunate to have his National
winner in the care of such a delightful and sensible young woman, the sort of
stable hand you would want to use to advertise racing.” Sam ‘I was numb and
screaming for all I was worth. It feels like a dream - things like this don’t
happen to people like me.’
06th April 2002 Grand National Result
What a marvellous triumph for Jim Culloty, Bindaree and Nigel Twiston-Davies.
Turfcall sends congratulations to all.
21st January 2002 Turfcall News Article
For in-depth coverage of the Tote's obstructive behaviour in discussions with
the BHB and for analysis of the risks to the future of Horseracing itself that
the Tote is creating please read Tote Exposure
07th January 2002 Turfcall News Article
The controversy surrounding the almost unbelievable decision made by the
Exeter Stewards on November 23rd 2001 continues. For detailed information about
the original circumstances, and everything that has happened since, do take time
to read the article Boring Goring
|
