i grew up going Racing. Many happy memories. The crowd that flocked around my Father in his back line position taught me the benefits of flamboyance and independant thinking.

.

Waiting for the likes of Colin Webster, John Pegley, Stephen Little, John Banks and David Power to emerge from the coffee bars ten minutes before the race like gun slingers. Stand on a box without an LED board in sight and lay bets to make your eyes water. To win ten and twenty grand at Pontefract and Windsor as if it were but ten pence. Show no reaction, win or lose. In those days there was a deep respect between punter and Bookmaker. Even if few punters won money in those days. There were no recognised betting systems. No bets were turned away.

I use to buy the sliced pineapple and dish out free ice creams to his punters- hand out the John Banks is my Bookie badge. I put and took bets before I reached 15 years. I learned how David Power took whopper bets, that on occasion  won, and how he just smiled and paid. How Dudley Roberts played both sides of the betting fence as punter and layer. I stuck.my ear in to the battle between Steven Little and Michael Tabor. ‘Get in and given out what he’s backing!’ – my Father would chide. There were no free rides for Sons

And every penny laid in the Ring, stayed in the Ring. The market was vibrant, strong and healthy. A horse at 6/4 was available to lumps. At the smallest meeting you’d see four, even five lines of ‘Tattersalls’ Bookies. ‘Rails’ firms, so designated because they stood on the rail that divides members and Tattersalls enclosures, traditionally laid the largest wagers, despite not being permitted to display their odds.

John Banks changed that.

For customers, the Ring was a place of wonder and fun. Bets laid and a simple cardboard numbered ticket issued, representing the contract. Each bet notated by a ‘clerk’ with large betting ledgers. Such clerks were clever analytical types, although in those days the Bookie was solely responsible for the odds displayed. He had to understand margins, percentages and coupled odds. ‘Figures’ was the byword and i was taught if you laid a bet at the right rate, you would prosper. No Gambling Commission required to ensure fair play.

Tic-Tac men were common and I was taught how to ‘speak’ their language. There were no laptops, no WIFI. The Tic-Tac men were incredibly skilled with iconic names like ‘Micky Fingers’ ‘The Doc’ and ‘Rocky Roberto.’ They could move sizeable wagers about the ring with a flick of their wrist.

The Racing product was strong. Meetings were far fewer than today. The All Weather didn’t exist. By extension the National Hunt programme prospered from a diet of ‘lesser’ performers wasted from the flat.

John Banks

When Betfair arrived things changed. Exchanges have never been a positive for the betting ring. Of course there are those who argue they represented choice and value. However, it also marked the point in time when the traditional friendly rivalry between fearless layers came to an end. I remember berating firms, like Martyn of Leicester who campaigned remorselessly for their introduction. To his cost these days as he drives about in a station wagon.. 🙂  He wasn’t alone in his views.  Martyn found the first ‘no lose’ system, where he could lay firms like Ladbrokes a £7000 to £4000 (That is £4000 wagered at 7/4) and ‘hedge the wager for a profit with aggressive exchange layers. Often taking 2/1 or 9/4 back. It was simple. Too simple. The cancer started to eat into the Ring. Ladbrokes, Hills and Coral became apathetic about hedging into a Ring, which resolutely refused to cut their prices, now they had the protection and profits afforded by Betfair, as they had in the past. Why send down 20 grand to control the price of a horse at Sandown if the only effect were to line the pockets of the ‘ring arbers?

I warned them at that time, of the dangers, but to new bookies utilising this system of trading, it was far simpler method of trading than working a traditional ‘book.’ Anything that simple isn’t sexy.

Of course the advent of exchanges on track wouldn’t have occurred had the then Chairman of the powerful Levy Board, Rob Hughes,  ignorantly cast his vote in favour of permitting bookies to hedge into exchanges on track. At that time, nobody knew or understood the benefits or dangers of betting exchanges and the potential damage that could have been caused with their introduction. Hughes, a novice in betting terms, famously cast his vote, in a split board, to permit their introduction. A deeply foolish man left his ‘mark’ on Racing.

Even today, with its LED boards, the death of Tic-Tacs and far less money in the ring for bookies to work with, it still retains much of its fascination to people going Racing. For many a bet with a bookmaker is the only way to wager on track. Odds are clearly displayed, and a printed ticket informs the novice how much they can win. Payouts are fast, and the truth is very few bets are ever turned down, even in smaller rings. Yes the place terms in 16-21 runner handicaps can be less than available outside the track, but the BHA has managed to run the programme down to such an extent these days such races are relatively rare.

The betting ring is still a major draw for people going racing, even if on occasion they do not understand it! It’s replete with characters, colour and noise. Money can be seen changing hands in a thoroughly unique environment. Betting remains the principle ‘raison d’etre’ for horseracing, even if some snobs would have us believe it is all about breeding! There are many characters in the modern betting environment, bets aren’t refused, best odds guarantees has made an appearance, there’s still plenty of healthy competition between rival operators. And there’s still a moral code that exists between Bookie and Punter-that doesn’t exist in the Online marketplace.

With all this in mind I struggle to understand the ambivalence racetracks have to their betting partners. They seem entirely immune to issues we collectively face. There’s unfortunately a big difference between olden day bookies and their modern counterpart. The likes of Densham, Banks, Power and Webster were rich. They went racing in Bentleys. These days the bookmakers turn up in Renault estates. Although they work hard, add colour and flavor to the racetracks, pay often thousands in fees every week, the bookmakers are simply treated like dirt by racetrack executives. You think that’s a harsh description? Read on.

I do share punter concerns as to how they are treated by the new traders running betting operations for big concerns. Sniff a winner and you’re closed. Such basic skills employed have eroded what was formerly an excellent  relationship between The two protagonists. But this doesn’t happen in the betting ring. A price is a price. There are no closed accounts along with no James Knight types. Just a lifetime of real bookie experience and a fair bet. No restrictions or closures. No knock backs. Service with a flat cap.

Another truth is the Starting Price returns, which so rarely reflect the true rates available on course, to decent money. Far too much ‘weight’ is aforded to major betting companies like Ladbrokes, whose principal effect in attending so many unprofitable meetings, is to distort the SP returns by often offering the lowest prices in the betting ring.

What is killing the modern-day ring is the disappearance of monies wagered by customers on track into betting exchanges off the racecourse. At a pen stroke the health and integrity of the ring has been compromised. Bookmakers nowadays bet hard up to betting exchange odds and trade it with exchanges to create margin. It’s typical for the ring to match precisely the odds available on the exchange. The only notable difference is represented by outsiders, which few people wager upon. There you will typically see a difference between what a bookie offers against the kexchange equivalent. The Bookie however has to be mindful of the place market for such selections. The exchange ‘layer’ doesn’t concern himself with such niceties.

The second problem for the Ring involve racetrack policies. Led by a small and influential group of individuals who never frequent their betting rings. They exist in a world between corporate box and paddock. It’s extremely rare these days to see racetrack management in the betting ring. Two notable exceptions to this rule were Edward Gillespie of Cheltenham and Charles Barnett of Ascot. Both of whom spent a great deal of time hobnobbing with Bookmakers. The rest simply don’t bother.

Why don’t more track managers spend more time with what are, in effect, their best customers? Because Bookmakers like to complain about their lot! Notably about extortionate expenses tracks charge to bet these days. Executives are fully aware they are overcharging the ring. Facing Bookmaker complaints evidently lacks appeal! A Bookmaker not only shoulders penal rates to bet at racetracks, which migrates his little business into a penny arcade affair- he does more out of love, than profit. Often forced to park upwards of 500 yards away from the Betting Rings as track bosses pay them very little mind over more influential patrons, and their Rolls Royce’s. It’s common to see Bookmakers pushing heavy equipment several hundred yards, without complaint, in all weathers, to their ‘pitch.’ And of course these days tracks seek to charge often ridiculous rates to park your car in a muddy field near to their premises.

Bookmakers are charged season by season a ‘marketing fee’ in their contract which is supposed to be utilised to market the Ring. In reality the monies are trousered. There’s no evidence, certainly none by any racetrack I attend who spend one dollar of those fees in marketing the Ring. Indeed with ‘Racetrack Bet’ fees at tracks like Chester are far more likely spent bigging up their own product, over the Ring.

The third nail in the coffin is in the new policy incepted by groups of tracks such as Arena and Jockey Club, to turn the product from one focussed on the sport, to a social event. The expression that Racetracks have become ‘giant pubs’ – whilst unpopular no doubt with track executives, fancying their product as better than it actually is, is undoubtedly accurate. And with drink as the legal sale, and drugs the illegal entrant to the mix, we get regular unpleasant sights and sounds and yes, constant fights on tracks.

Throw into this new environment a thoroughly impotent regulator, in the shape of the British Horseracing Authority, which has notably failed to punish any racetrack for the behaviour of its patrons, nor to control the tens of millions of plastic cups the tracks create. All of this wastage casually disposed of. An ecological nightmare the likes of Harman and Rust do absolutely nothing about. Shame on you. What if someone draws the attention of Sky News to your failures here?

The truth is that as the ‘giant pub’ ideal has taken firm hold. The product on display in sporting terms has notably declined. Viewing numbers for the sport are in significant free fall, we are heading towards satellite coverage, as are those attending. Racetrack simply ‘guesstimate’ attendees. I was amused to see Goodwood figures for Glorious Goodwood as comparing favourably with last years. Despite a monsoon on the Wednesday which clearly put thousands off attending, the numbers the track claimed actually attended almost mirrored each other from 2017 to 2018.

It’s regular to see concerts put on by tracks, and attendances reflect the stars on display. However it’s often ‘married’ to extremely low-grade racing. At a time when the sport could be showcasing to a new audience its best Racing, in fact it chooses to put on some of its worst fare. Concert nights are often some of the worst nights for bookies in turnover terms. The crowd is simply not interested in betting on the poor product wedded to the concert.

The Ring owes its success or failure to the quality of the racing. The better and more competitive the sport is, the busier the Ring becomes. Increasingly those who attend racing do so not out of a love of horses, but as a social pastime. It’s profitable for the tracks, less so for the sport, and the Ring that so depends on it to survive.

What track executives miserably fail to recognise is that it is, in fact, their betting ring that remains the principal draw to racegoers. Get yourselves over to France to evidence the lack of atmosphere there with no bookies in attendance. It’s an odd scene indeed. We are very lucky that so may Bookies turn out to work, so often, for such pitiful returns. I feel of course it is useless to argue with both Racetracks and BHA, to expect them to afford their betting rings far more respect than they do so now. I am fully aware that to a track the ring is an important cash cow. However as business partners- and the principle draw on your property every time we turn out, we deserve to be better treated than we are right now. We should be parked closer, we should be allowed to leave our equipment safely overnight for meetings of more than one day, and yes, we should be charged less to bet.

Long term prognosis for Racetrack ‘Supremos’ who ignore such advice is not healthy. At some stage you’re going to have to improve your act as councils, rather than the BHA, act to control your excesses, and the drunken mob you throw out into the community at the end of every meeting. At some stage you’re going to have to stop over charging your Bookmakers and basing daily fees on your most expensive ‘rack rates’ and other such methods you employ to improve your bottom line, at our expense. Customers want Bookmakers. The leading betting event – the Cheltenham Festival now showcases just two (incomplete) lines of Bookies in your Ring, when once there were five.

Focus on your Ring, make it affordable and reinvigorate it. Repay the debt you owe to us as partners in your success.

Geoff Banks

August 2018

Let’s play telly stats, everyone loves a stat.. Viewing figures for England playing Columbia topped 24 million. Wimbledon matches, available on free to air BBC regularly figure in the millions of viewers for matches leading up to the finals. Six nations Rugby regularly tops 8m. Premier League viewing matches on pay per view on Sky average 1m viewers a game.

Of course I am discussing free to air. I think it’s fair to say if a sport decides to head towards pay per view, it chooses to marginalise itself. The BBC clearly pays a lot less to cover sport, but its power in raising the profile of the same to new levels is without parallel. 13 million viewers tuned into see the Murray Wimbledon final on BBC. Wimbledon, for all its commercial power resolutely remains with the BBC.

Which makes he decision of Racing Chiefs to head down the commercial broadcaster route, and dumping a public service broadcaster in CH4 all the more inexplicable. In fact the BEEB does tender for Racing, but its bids are regarded by racetrack groups in charge of telly rights, and desperate for cash, as too low. They’re clearly less interested in growing the sport, over their trouser pockets.
.
Royal Ascot is the very pinnacle of the flat racing season. A five-day festival with some of the finest racing paired with considerable pomp, ceremony and fashion. Despite all this on offer, we managed on free to air a paltry daily average of just over 1/2 a million viewers, that’s one fortieth of those who tuned into England. Said figures amusingly buried in the Racing Post under an article headed ‘sectional times at Ascot.’

.
I don’t think, though, its down to the coverage. I recall watching last year several recordings of the show and I found the ITV manner struck an entirely good note with this meeting.
.
As a Bookmaker I often judge the success of the meeting in pure turnover terms, and that was significantly down this year. The simple fact was, what was on the ‘pitch’ was a dearth of top stars. Cracksman was off his game and dethroned, Lady Aurelia invisible. The St James’s Palace was an awful renewal, I’m sorry to say. Whilst there were some excellent performances, there’s simply far too many weak Group Class events, and too many excuses for absentees.
.
Fine, some people disagreed with me that comparisons with a World Cup qualifier were hardly fair, and of course I would agree, such comments are designed to engage the reader. The viewing figures at Cheltenham, Aintree and Ascot haven’t been impressive, given the free to air advantage, we ought to be batting in the 1.5m viewers mark, as was muted when ITV came on board. I do not, however, feel this is the fault of the network here.
.
What’s the issue?
.
The Sport, yes it’s us. Yesterday’s Eclipse featured just 7 participants. The follow-up to the same in subsequent races, comprising two handicaps and a listed marathon contained 6, 6 and 7 runners. The most popular event on the Racing calendar, in viewing and betting terms, is a 40 runner handicap in Liverpool. Most casual viewers to the sport have never heard of either Saxon Warrior or Roaring Lion. Up until this season neither had hit any major headlines with anyone other than Racing anoraks. We’ve become insular in Racing, we imagine the casual viewer knows who these ‘babies’ are. Losing a Derby winner to the field, is therefore, immensely damaging to the race.

The finest horse of our generation is now pumping out replacements at stud, to the tune of 300 grand a pop. The best of a rather moderate siblings would be Cracksman. In no way would I want to impune his successes, but in comparison to Frankel himself, his progeny have been a poor substitute to the great horse doing his thing on the track. Racing’s number one star retired to young, and well before he needed to. Buy a ticket for Barcelona, and you’ll see Messi. Buy a ticket for Racing each season, it’s unlikely the new audience we are so desperate to attract has heard of any of the performers.

Frankel, an iconic racehorse, literally put bums on seats. He retired, let’s not forget as a four-year old! Did he have any nuts by the time he was 4?? Would those same essentials be available to mares at 6? Well of course they would. Quite literally his stud value to Juddmonte far exceeded what he could earn on the track. Simple commerce you say?

Except that Khalid Abdullah is one of Racing’s billionaires. Along with Godolphin, Coolmore, Oppenheimer. They simply don’t need the money. It’s therefore a paradox they choose to send their ponies to service mares at 3 and 4 years of age. Golden Horn was exceptional, a potential perennial superstar. Retired as a three year old to bolster Oppenheimer earnings.

And whilst they race, as fans we are treated to the monthly pantomime of will they-won’t they show up. It’s nothing new to see horses openly avoid competition. Because it makes more commercial sense to the afore-mentioned billionaires apparently to send them to stud all with the grand title of ‘the best I’ve ever owned.’

Only a few luxuriant trainers are afforded such stars. Our press hangs on their every word. When connections dodge events because of the opposition, it’s always tied to one excuse or another. You really don’t expect them to say ‘I’m not going to the Sussex because Enable is down to run.’ Of course not. It’s a niggle or a knock, and they roll out to perform a few weeks later. Because Racing affords these few stars that many opportunities.

So whilst I take on the amiable Lee Mottershead, explaining to us how nice Charlie Appleby is, whom he telephoned about the Derby winner’s defection from the Eclipse, it’s because I’m eternally disappointed we allow connections such an easy ride, when we absolutely know most defections are a cynical exercise in maintaining breeding valuations. Masar ‘got a knock’ was the report, the extent of which was unspecified, but he didn’t need a scan. And he was withdrawn on the day before the Eclipse. On the day of the Eclipse, the same Racing Post is reporting he is ‘responding well to treatment and likely out very soon.’ The damage wasn’t that earth shattering after all. Could he have, in fact, turned out to entertain us after all? Was Appleby too cautious, or could the late entrant to the field in the notably talented Saxon Warrior in fact influenced the decision. In any other sport, such questions would be routine.

You know it really makes little odds to me if Masar was, or wasn’t fit to race. Some keyboard warriors accused me of slandering Appleby, which means they didn’t care to read what I wrote. It was the the meek acceptance that yet another star didn’t turn out to work on a feature day I objected to. People paid to see Masar in the Eclipse, others wagered on him and lost considerable monies. We all deserve a reasonable explanation for his absence. Journalists seem far too ready to accept the stable tours. Nobody called Appleby a liar. I am though, entirely frustrated with the top echelons of training, and their constant histrionics. As we all should be. It really wasn’t about Masar, or this incident. Perhaps I am an essential evil to some, saying what others dare not. I really don’t seek to be controversial, but I do want the sport to challenge itself to do better.

Athletes, notably human ones, constantly perform with injuries, knocks and niggles. Our best horses appear so wrapped in cotton wool, the slightest inflammation, or let’s admit it, the presence of another star suddenly turning up in the field, enough to see them defect. If you think they don’t avoid meaningful opposition, you don’t understand breeding.

.
In my view, I’m perfectly entitled to question top trainers as to defections, it doesn’t mean I have to be an expert in training, as Jim Boyle so farcically alleged. It does mean I have to understand the commercial realities he so tacitly ignores, which I believe I do. And to continue to pressurise trainers into participation. Some may argue ‘the welfare of the horse’ as paramount. That’ however shows a fundamental ignorance of what’s important to connections. A series of 1’s and an early bath.

So no, it isn’t about Masar, persay. I welcome him back in a week or two’s time, crutches or not. I am frustrated with the eternal merry-go-round of top middle distance performers and their early departure to stud.

As to the future? Unless the Authorities in charge of Racing on both sides of the Irish Sea do something about arresting the flow of top horses to stud, the only thing that will keep Racing going is the beer tent. The viewing figures are telling us to pull our socks up as a sport, because we cannot best Columbo.

A notable giant of training died this week. If my memory serves me correctly Dunlop had to depart his life’s career, because the books wouldn’t balance, with a short fall in product to train. Those at the highest echelons of training, with positive bank balances, because they are rich in Racing’s best product, owe it to the others, to send Masar, and his peers, out to race as often – and for as long as they can. So what if they don’t always win? The sport cannot grow without its stars.

Please note. You are only reading this garbage because you’ve given me permission to write it, and by reading this you agree and understand you may not always smile, laugh or hate me any less if you’ve ever given me money. That I signed up with the information commissioners office because I had to, not because I understand it
.

Let’s talk Ascot.
For the Yah Yah’s and Carolines, Ascot represents the pinnacle of their (racing) social calendar. Said types wouldn’t be seen dead at Kempton. No surprise there, you have to like your food from vans there. Of the fifty thousand who make the daily pilgrimage to the great track, I’d hazard only 38 are actually aware there are horses on the premises.

.
For dirty stinking low life Bookmakers who never lay a bet and have turned the whole planet into problem Gamblers, because that’s what we do of course, Ascot is another fun week on our cosial come working calendar. Not the Cheltenham type of money. That’s proper Irish cash. A chance simply to get some of our bail out cash back, and watch Ruby fall at the last.  Ascot by comparison far more the social event. With the Sovereign riding down the long mile in her plush carriage, reminding us gently who is, in fact in charge of the place. Bookies desperately bet on the colour of her hat, to disgraceful margins. Everyone gets on, and no restrictions.  I hear the great Paddy Power was once called to explain how they ‘knew’ she was going to wear a black hat. These days we have the Gambling Commission to get involved in such serious breaches of protocol. Like they did over the goalkeeper who ate the pie.. big deal.

I do enjoy the pomp and circumstance of Ascot, but increasingly it’s straight in, straight out, i can’t share my space anymore with people who’ve so evidently been on the lash all day, whilst I’m forced to work. Perhaps I’ve discovered religion?
A dog sniffs me on the way in. To check I’ve got money?  Everyone is terribly polite. I do know many of the gatemen at Ascot, they seem a nice bunch. A long way from their snooty predecessors. Thr Ring is full of Bookies waiting to pitch up. They try to fool those ahead of them in the pick as to where the best places to bet are. Moanng hour has started. They gather to complain about their lot. Favourite topic are usually racecourse expenses, exchanges, how few bets they take. That sort of thing. Doesn’t matter how much they moan though in the given hour, they’ll never actually contemplate change. Bless

.
I’ve decided since Epsom to offer Best Odds Guarantee to my customers on track. It should be a real tonic to all bettors. Particularly if one of those daft buggers betting with firms betting to 1/5th the odds on handicaps, when it should be a 1/4. I mean how stupid can you get? I don’t understand such tactics. It’s as if my colleagues aren’t aware they’re in competition with cyber bookies.

 
Best Odds is a tonic for all customers. Unfortunately the majority of those who wager haven’t the first clue what it means. Basically if you take 7/1, and it drifts to 10/1 at the starting price (SP) – you get the 10/1. Off track, all punters expect this deal, on track most don’t know what it means.. I believe the On Course market needs to compete with the off course, if it is to survive, and prosper. That will require racetrack management to work with its Bookmakers a lot more, not just turn them upside down and shake for change. Ascot for its part is soon to be the beneficiary of a new Tote system, aligned with Hong Kong players. Wouldn’t it be sweet if the executive to pass on some of those benefits to its hard pressed ring?

So if you see a Bookmaker offering 1/4 the odds in all handicaps, AND best odds guarantees,  support the Bookmakers making a fair stand. Punters like to gripe about such things, but universally fail to support them when they’re offered. I hear people bellyaching about Bet365 all the time, yet they still sign up every time they give away a tenner. This is why business doesn’t care what you think.

.

I enjoyed my spat with Star Sports, led by the amiable Ben Keith. Those so so regularly ”bigged up” by  their personal communications director, Matt Chapman, who bizzarely eats up whatever they tell him with a giant spoon. Whilst I admire their stance on greyhound funding,  a leading Bookmaker gloating over monies it has won off of its customers is all in poor taste. As for the bets they claim to have laid? Well who’s checking the truth of those wagers when the cameras are about?  We won’t know and they can’t tell us. Anyone heard of ‘top of the book?’ How big was the fish you caught??

.

Despite these ‘whoppers’ the firm bets to 1/5th the odds, in handicaps where the Tattersalls standard is 1/4. Ben well knows how little the 1/5th the odds trick is understood by inexperienced gamblers. No leading Bookmaker, Stephen Little, David Power, John Banks or Tony Morris in my career has ever ‘bent’ on standard terms and I thoroughly object to this penny-pinching measure. Paradoxic to the ‘we’ve laid another whopper’ when you’re short-changing someone £5 on the place book. David Power crowing about how much he made – never happened. It;s vulgar and cheap.

For me, such small-minded tactics aren’t in any way praiseworthy, and by no token ‘representing on course bookmakers.’  Particularly not me. I’m proud to say in my career, I’ve never bent on each way terms. If Star Sports want to set themselves up as Kings Of The Ring – bet with honour.

.
When it comes to big field events- the casual first time punter rules OK.

.
‘Please give us the horse numbers!’
‘£5 each way Red Rum please’
‘Which horse number please?’
‘err, ehm, 13/8?’
That bet costs £10, do you mean £5 as that’s what you’ve given me?’
‘Yes, £5, but I’ve given you the wrong horse, I want L’escargot – is that ridden by Frankie Destori??’

.
Repeat 1500 times daily.

.
Ascot for me has to be one of the pinnacle of the Racing season. It’s by a long stretch the smartest and best run racetrack, probably the world, and a showpiece week for the sport. Whilst Royal Ascot remains the showpiece event of the year, it’s not all praiseworthy. I am concerned at spiraling costs for the casual racegoer, – which results in less families. £75 to get into the Grandstand enclosure is excessively steep. £95 for a bottle of champagne, retailing at Waitrose for £32 is grand larceny, unless you get a Sheila with every glass? York manages to charge £50 for the same and offers a daily champagne for under £40.  £20 to park your car in a field 1/2 a mile from the front gate is simply beyond the pale.

If paying off the debt it ran up building such an impressive Grandstand, earlier than it needs to, puts the right people off attending such a great event, then let the Bank wait on its cash.

If a track is not fit for families, its not fit at all. 17 arrests over Ascot from various offences, perversion (no it wasn’t me..) to brawling, is not a success. The fact remains drugs are getting into these venues, sniffer dogs at entrances are spectacularly easy to circumvent. And alcohol is sold to utter excess, check the condition of people leaving race tracks these days. Thrown out on local communities. It really is entirely unacceptable.Football learned how to deal with its problems. We surely do no need to reinvent the wheel here. The front of every race track should be alcohol free.

Lumpy cash bets were few in the Ring. I laid 2 grand to one guy a winner at 2/1. Another had £3500 on a 4/1 winner. Another £1000 each way on a 33/1 winner. There’s a pattern here.. overall I showed a profit through the five days, but I won’t be buying another Sikorsky.

.
ITV spent three days after Ascot telling each other on Twitter how great they were, everyone nicely on message. Despite registering over a million less viewers, a story their chums at the Racing Post buried in a story headed ‘Ascot goes for sectional timings.’ and described as healthy viewing numbers..Nice bit of editing. Chamblerlin gives Millington extra shots on the golf course- NAP. Fact is the viewing figures were shocking poor. Dumbing down the sport and outlawing betting in favour of fashion isn’t winning the ratings war, along with that wooden delivery

.
As I pen this – I’m on business to Munich, squeezed into a British Airways ‘Club Class seat’, which looks a lot like the economy seat next door. He also seems to be eating the same crushed Panini they’ve served me. Which is odd. The crew is explaining how a life jacket will save my life, which is great news, if the airplane heads into the ground like a dart, I shall put my life jacket on of course. I’ll survive the rest are fucked. My Club Class seat also has a silver whistle to attract sharks, in case we land in the pool. Nice touch.

The ‘come on everyone- let’s self exclude’ Gambling Commission were in the Ring at Ascot sending in 16 year olds, done up to the ninepins, who look like 25 to see who cracks. I don’t mind such things, they seem marvellous punters 🙂 These days nobody asked me for my ID when I placed the odd speculative punt, which is odd.

.

I didn’t think the card was particularly good this year unusually. The Gold Cup seemed a poor heat. No Derby winner on parade. No Enable or even that powder puff Winx. Who impressed me the most? Well I think Blue Point running down Battaash was fairly impressive. Lady Aurelia moved smoothly to post, but didn’t head back. Cracksman and Saxon Warrior look done with Racing. You read it here first.

.
As for Harry’s Angel getting stuck in the stalls? check the close-ups carefully and you’ll see I had a firm grip of his tail.. No Sir, no ‘justice refunds’ – which wide-eyed boffins came up with that trick?

.
See you in 2019. remember lose responsibly.

Banks.

There will be more than one track manager peering in on this post. With the woe is me attitude. ‘Lads will fight – not much we can do about that is there?’

Well, they can’t fight on the terraces at football anymore, for fear of being kicked out. Football knows who they are, whilst we make no attempt to ID our customers. They can’t battle at the cricket, or the rugby. This leaves Racing, as the new battleground for thugs. So whilst you’re selling them as much beer as they can stand without care for anyone else’s view of said policy, – consider this.

You’re creating a favourable environment for hooliganism to flourish in Racing.

Bookmakers who work in betting rings will tell you stories of fights they have witnessed at almost every racetrack they attend. Personally I’ve witnessed in the enclosures fights at Newbury, Epsom, Ascot, Goodwood, Sandown, Cheltenham and Newmarket. Odd that I’ve never seen a fight at York. Perhaps the people of the North have more class. Fights north of the border simply don’t happen. Want to look at someone’s girlfriend in Scotland? By all means, isn’t she lovely? Scots folk don’t suffer from the colonial daft mentality of the South.

It’s hard to pick one of those fights I have seen as the worst. I suppose for me the ten minute fight beside the winning post (in the ‘members enclosure’ ) on a warm day at Sandown as possibly the worst example, although it’s a bunch finish. Whilst folk that Racing should want to attend stood watching in horror as this melee continued unchecked. Little wonder so many don’t come back. That’s when I took the time to find out what arrangements Racetracks have in place to protect the Racing public from these thugs.

Most tracks employ ‘rapid reaction’ teams to deal with brawls. These are specialist trained individuals. It isn’t generally known that regular raceday staff, to include stewards, will not involve themselves in breaking up fights, and at such low rates of pay, why should they?

The ‘Rapid’ force took ten minutes to arrive at Sandown. In the guise of one impressive individual called Nigel, who saved Sandown’s blushes. He was of such girth he was able to break up the fight single handedly. The rapid reaction force, which had been observing the group involved for some time on monitors, were at the other end of the track.

There aren’t enough of these intervenors. Tracks want to plunder drink profits, without ensuring the safety and comfort of attendees, by employing sufficient trained security personnel.

Some facts about fights we are aware . Most tend to occur on hot days, and involve drunken groups of men, or these days on drugs, quite often egged on by inebriated women! Today’s female can be as aggressive as the male. Racetracks base their finances on food and beverage sales, which is why they favour Saturday meetings. Nobody appears to be in control of what racetracks get up to. Not the BHA, local authorities, nor the Gambling Commission.

Children see these fights, that’s our future. Old people (and the not so old) witness them regularly and have to share enclosures with these unpleasant groups. It must be a sobering and even frightening thing to be so close to. These are race fans too, very often members, but track executives pay them little mind. Their money is already in the pot.This isn’t me being cynical here, there’s absolutely no evidence management give two hoots about people there to view the horse and just the horse.

Newmarket has earned the deserved reputation for the worst excesses of brawls, on Jockey Club land. It’s doubtful any of the executives, who head straight for corporate boxes, witness any of these events occurring, far less care.

Two subjects rarely discussed, but should be on the table at British Racing:

One, the impact on the environment of tens of millions of plastic cups. What happens to all this once used material? Hard not to assume it ends up clogging our seas and killing wildlife. As such topics gain more exposure, it’s not something being discussed in Racing.

Second, why are we not discussing the throwing out into the local community of thousands of drunken individuals? I wonder what it must be like for those living proximate to UK Racetracks at closing time. People being sick in doorways, disheveled, shouting and aggressive. We are supposed to be part of the community.

Jockey Club are simply irresponsible when it comes to sales of drink. I’ve witnessed first hand over many years totally uncontrolled sales of alcohol, to often clearly drunken individuals, by temporary staff literally pumping out the beer. Jockey Club’s reaction to the fight culture? Let’s serve everyone their drink in a plastic cup, perhaps so no-one gets ‘glassed’ on our racetrack. Let’s not sell tickets to children in case they see drunken people carrying on alarmingly. Yes, that’s another scheme they came up with. It’s a perverse management that thinks this way.

I read recently comments by Simon Bazelgette, the Chief Executive of Jockey Club, telling us we need to do more to encourage people to the sport. So his business plan is to overcharge them at the turnstiles, to park. Sell as much beer as people demand. Preside over many brawls on your properties,  and see more people Racing is it? I guess that’s why 75% of those who come Racing, only go once according to statistics. A poor success rate. Whilst I do not attend Arena Leisure tracks, I’ve heard of major incidents at Lingfield and Chepstow. The problem is pandemic.

The most recent brawl took place at Goodwood. If you have the stomach – view the video links below. This isn’t the first major fight at that track. No sanction has ever brought on Goodwood.

I have included this shocking video because it’s vital that Racing understands and accepts its need to control the excesses of racetracks- alcohol has a social cost. The scenes are graphic. I think you should try to watch it, because we all need to act together to force social responsibility onto our tracks.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/992795085963190273/pu/vid/720×1280/qtoV6ularmQR6vQb.mp4?tag=3

Is this a ‘society problem?’ And therefore not the fault of the tracks? Surely we do not need to re-invent the wheel here. Rugby isn’t afflicted by Racing’s malaise. Wimbledon focuses on delivering a quality service and a great show to their clientele. They’re not interested in beer sales over quality. That’s the ideal we should seek.

But what of the Regulator? The British Horseracing Authority? In any other sport,  tracks or venues would be fined, sanctioned, even had their licenses suspended or removed for such failures. Why is the BHA in absentia? They’re supposed to control matters for the benefit of all of the racegoers, and the good image of the sport. To date absolutely nothing has been said from that body on the subject. I am disgusted at their failure to take firm remedial action on Racetracks, but not totally surprised, given the make up of the BHA board and the influence racetracks have on British Racing Chiefs.

Many years ago, Football was forced to the negotiating table to deal with its hooligan element. Chairmen of clubs accepting that blaming matters on society was no longer acceptable. Those who attend games are identified. Transgressors are punished by the forfeiture of their seats. Grounds are stewarded by the clubs, at their own cost, with the involvement of police minimal. As a result, football has re-invented itself. I’m quite comfortable to take my children to any football match. I wouldn’t take them to Epsom. Ever. It’s a vile, aggressive place. Fights are routine.

Racetracks might well base their finances on alcohol, but that doesn’t make it right. No more than its dependency on FOBT’s. We needn’t be sympathetic to Goodwood, Epsom or Newmarket or put up with mass brawls because they need to make more money.

And most certainly – the Regulator of Racing, the BHA, has to engage forcefully, and yes Goodwood should be punished immediately for its security failures here. Only racegoers can be seen trying to break up the brawl. We don’t all want to share our Racing experience with folk too inebriated to stand up and I certainly think it’s a disgrace our children should find themselves outlawed from the sport in favour of alcohol.

Despite the many complaints I see on mediums such as Twitter about the manner in which large companies behaves towards their customers, it’s depressingly true that if they offered a 3 quid bet, many line up like soldiers to sign up. Precisely why I look upon complaints from those who have signed up with something approaching disdain. Why are you surprised that they care so little about your business?

Corporate Bookmakers ‘increase’ their worth, by making a series of unsustainable offers whilst growing your customer numbers. The few million you lose offering ten places on the Grand National, dwarfed by the deals done to acquire the businesses.

The modern punter has a grab a penny attitude. I read one punter saying that ‘he was never going to support on course Bookmakers.’ Reason? Some of them were offering a fifth of the win odds in a handicap race, where off course supermarkets were a quarter for a place. The fact that ring wide there are, in fact, plenty of bookies prepared to offer a quarter the odds, entirely escaped this argument. The On Course market is endlessly pressurized by the availability of betting APP’s – and greedy short-sighted Racetracks ramping up their prices in the face of declining margins and turnover.

Then we have the ‘vested interested party’ in debates about who to bet with. The burgeoning crew of professional ‘matched bettors’ who wait on opportunities to match wagers to their advantage, bookmaker odds against betting exchanges. A group  characterized by two notable traits. They think their excessively clever to finally find a way of beating the bookie, even if the system is so simple. It astonishes me any of these individuals, and their Sisters, moan about being shut down. I suppose it’s because they imagine Bookmakers to be as simple as they are. They consist of some of the most arrogant group of bettors out there, with no respect for not only Bookmakers, but for regular punters, who for the most part continue to lose to Bookies. They sneer at such individuals.

In all these debates, based on differing views of both Bookmaking, and punters, I’m stuck by the effect of such attitudes on the ever declining Racetrack and independent Bookmaker sector. This is the section of betting that, in my opinion, represents the traditional relationship between a Bookmaker, and his customer. A corporate Bookie treats you as a number. There’s no ‘personal’ in the relationship.

Ask yourself one question. Imagine you walked into Sandown Racetrack and saw no Bookmakers in the ring. How would you feel about your eternal sniping for 8/5 when something was quoted at 6/4? What a boring and depressing betting environment that would be. I wonder if those who favour betting hypermarkets over small enterprise appreciates fully what a racetrack would look without Bookmakers? How sterile it would become. Even those who do not bet still enjoy the ring’s colour.

You see in all these monotonous calls I hear for better odds, more offers, money back guarantees, people are gradually voting for a world without service, or more importantly – fun. My Father used to say to me that people would come into his shops because winning off John Banks was far more fun that a faceless entity like Coral. Of course, it was.

So, whilst you all sit there, in your underpants with your mouse, fiddling about the websites looking for 2.62 instead of 2.60 – remember that with each offer you sign up for – you’re giving one more resounding vote for said corporate Bookmakers to treat you in any way they see fit. Why should they respect you when you behave so predictably?

You are worthwhile only insofar as wet behind the ears ‘traders,’ who’ve never laid an egg in their young lives determine you’re ‘too sharp’ to lay a bet to. Reward companies, who lead on restrictions, with your business, because their websites let you ‘cash out’ a winning bet, when an independent might not, remember that’s a vote for a decline in service. In the meantime with cashout, you’re casually accepting the worst deal in Betting. Congratulations.

And whilst they busy themselves amalgamating into one or two global Betting supergiant, and you’ve voted the independent Bookmakers out of business, you used to enjoy wagering with, that’s another tick in the box for a decline in choice and value. They’re not buying each other up to offer better value or choice..

A few months ago, one of the legendary family Bookmaker outfits, Richard Power, went out of business in the face of declining turnover. It didn’t offer an online presence and I supposed it weighed against them. It didn’t merit much copy in the Racing Post, less on the Racing channels. The respected presence of David Power left all spheres of the game. A bit like your local green grocer going out of business. You know why? Because you’re all too lazy, or greedy, to make the effort to support the small firms.

You have a choice. We all respect that. But remember this, for nothing is more true. The bigger a company gets, the worse its service standards and ideals. Remember the little firms when you’re betting. It will pay in the long run. It’s a fallacy to imagine they’re not competitive. The difference is they will appreciate your custom. I certainly value my client’s loyalty.

And when you go Racing? Better favour the course market there before you end up with a faceless Tote, or ‘racetrack bet.’ Remember the famous Grand National 3 percent per runner hoopla? Now try 4 percent per runner (25% worse) in every race every day.

There are those that say the UK Gambling Commission is staffed by fools, that they cannot possibly understand their mandate. I think they do.

.
In similar vein, others argue they’re toothless, without purpose, a waste of money.
I don’t buy into either of those arguments. Would it surprise those of you, who do not know me, that I favour a stronger, more powerful regulator?

I’m reading everywhere, that the Commission takes ‘very seriously’ the problem gambling culture of the United Kingdom. They expect the operators to behave responsibly and whereupon they do not, they can expect large fines, or even ‘license review.’

I read they complain about dolly birds at trade fairs dominated by operators. Big deal.

I don’t hear them protecting children from Ray Winstone on their televisions at 8am. I do see them shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted – they work back to front, because that keeps the operators in money, they allow people to see gambling marketing at every turn, (exacerbating problem gambling levels,) then want the operators to pay for the problem gambling culture after its created. In simple terms – they work backwards.

Children caught in the headlamps of these companies.

I see lots of fines for big betting, for the same offences. I see increases in share prices. It’s good business to come out of the other side of a Commission investigation..

They’re not serious. In fact they’re a morally bankrupt and irresponsible body.

GAMBLING COMMISSION ON OPERATORS
In the last two years, Gala Coral committed two offences in breach of money laundering regulations. In both cases the company allowed individuals to gamble away a huge amount of money, without appropriate checks being made.

.
888Sport allowed self excluded customers to wager in other companies it controls. It had to have been informed by those self same customers when they lost monies that they had in fact self excluded.
888Sport are still in business today.

You can gamble 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There’s no watershed as in for example lottery operators. You can fund your account with a credit card, with monies you do not have. You can wager an incredible £100 a spin, multiple times an hour, or minute even in a betting shop. Indeed the Gambling Act created the environment whereupon a casino replaced WH Smith in your High Street. You can back a horse that’s fallen on exchanges, a form of organised fraud.

.
Watch a game of cricket, and you’ll be assaulted by a buffet of online operators, peddling their wares, headed by Hollywood hard man Ray Winstone on behalf of Bet365, shoving you into his ‘in play.’ We’ve become used to it. We’ve become immune from the harm it creates and the impact on children.

Racing channels totally ruled by their betting sponsors. Racetracks dependent on the betting cash from gaming companies. The leading trade paper totally, and unapologetically, subservient to its betting partners.

.
Customers given bonuses and inducements in several forms to encourage them into insidious products like gaming. Try closing your account, or stop betting with one of these companies and wait on teaser back to gambling.

Customers widely reporting of account ‘restrictions’ in their betting. Odds being advertised, yet no mandate to lay those odds?  Accounts with restrictions been kept open, in deference to share values, yet enquiries for wagers being met with responses offering £0. No explanations for these restrictions. No action from the regulator to ensure betting behemoths actually do what they say on their tins. If you advertise a price, you surely have to lay that price to all?

Where in the Gambling Commission’s drive on bookmaker’s ‘terms and conditions’ is their focus on actually ‘laying a bet’ as part of their conditions of licensing?

In such areas the Gambling Commission ‘passes the buck’ to other agencies such as the ASA, or trading standards. When in fact its knowledge and experience, in hand with an ability to remove licenses, should be acting to ensure their operators offer a level playing field and never post odds they’re not bound to lay. This regulator says its ok for an operator to post 10/1 Altior – but doesn’t have to lay it? Protection of the commercial interest of these bookmakers over requiring them to uphold their advertising!
.
The mandate of this Gambling Commission isn’t so much ‘the protection of the vulnerable’ unless you logically conclude the ‘vulnerable’  are in fact offshore gaming giants.

Point of consumption arrangements for offshore companies allow the UK to pay into the UK treasury, and the Commission’s remit isn’t to stand in the way of those arrangements. If it did, it would clearly be seen to cut the ability of companies based in overseas territories to advertise to the home market. This cosy deal between our the UK Government and the operators severely disadvantages those who choose to actually base business here.

A Government permitting offshore companies to flourish, at the expense of those who base business in the UK. The objective of good governance is to encourage companies to operate within the confines and control of the state. Any other arrangement represents corruption in Government.

.
Whilst tobacco and alcohol advertising are strictly controlled, we seem to have to re-invent the wheel for betting adverts. The Gambling Commission has no official position on the volume or scale of betting advertising. Said advertising and sponsorship is fast approaching a spend of 1 billion pounds a year. (Growth in spend between 2012 and 2016 was 46% to 456 million.)

Position of the Gambling Commission on fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops? None

Position of the Gambling Commission on Bet365’s illegal operations in China (as widely reported by the Chinese Government) None

.
Gambling Commission executives argue that if an advert is ‘responsible’ that it passes the test. This wouldn’t be the view of millions of sensible people. It’s a clear defence of commercial self interest.

Am I the only one to think if you’re bombarded with marketing multiple times an hour that that simply exacerbates the problem gambling culture?

Under the new UK licensing regime, operators deriving more than 3% of revenues from distinct international markets must disclose details of those businesses to the regulator, and provide a legal opinion justifying operations in those foreign markets. 20 major operators now base themselves fully abroad living off of grey earnings. The largest online operator under UK tax and regulation is, in fact, Geoff Banks.

Bet365 are capable of bringing in a half a billion of offshore earnings into the UK market every year. They use those monies to establish dominance, and distort, the UK market place.

.It’s hard to conclude therefore, given all these evident facts, that this Gambling Commission is in any way serious about the control of problem gambling,  For as long as its stance is to create a pleasing environment which encourages offshore gaming companies to behave in exactly the way they please, to advertise so voluminously, it remains my steadfast conclusion the Gambling Commission is quite simply not fit for purpose. All this at a time when the outgoing CEO appeared far more robust than her predecessor. The organisation is a paper tiger.

As this regulator presses ahead with changes to self exclusion schemes, they will create an environment where black market operations actively flourish. Once you design self exclusion schemes which have punters self excluding one day then trying to find an alternate avenue to wager the next, and you mandate operators not to do business with them for six months minimum, and then undertake never to contact them? That’s an invitation to the unregulated black market. Such schemes, whilst well meaning, remain spectacularly ill thought through.

The Gambling Commission would be better re-branded the marketing arm of gaming companies. I’ve never been one to pander to flim – flam. Less of the focus on pole dancers at industry shows, more on why companies are allowed to associate the word ‘Fun’ with responsible.

I’ve met the people working for the Gambling Commission.As they sit at their desks today checking to see if websites have think 21 signs and a link to links to responsible gambling helplines, ponder that you’re in fact doing far more protection of operators than regulating. No career bookmaker, or educated punter, would conclude different from this analysis of your performance.