Racing: Ask Tom? No point in asking Tate
Monday 23 March 1998
The reason, just in case you missed it in all the understandable excitement about One Man and Top Cees last Wednesday, was Tate's fascinating evidence to the stewards after Ask Tom's poor performance when fav-ourite for the Queen Mother Champion Chase. His horse, he said, had suffered a setback during his preparation for the race and was thus not at his best. Ask Tom himself, happily, was none the worse for the experience, but the same could not be said of those unfortunate enough to back him
The first thing you have to say about Tate's actions is that you cannot help but admire his honesty once the race had been run. Other trainers might have declared themselves mystified by his desperate run, or fallen back on that old favourite, "the jockey says he gurgled". Instead, Tate came clean and, even allowing for the detachment from reality afflicting many of his trade, he must have known he was inviting severe criticism, even though the stewards - quite correctly, as the rules stand - decided he had done nothing wrong.
Tate's attempt at justification was to claim that he was in a no-win situation, in which announcing the pre-race setback would have prompted just as many complaints if the horse still emerged victorious. This does not pass the faintest scrutiny. Success for Ask Tom in such circumstances would have reflected even greater credit on his handler, while the defeat which materialised would have been pre-excused by a mishap beyond his control.
Tate, of course, has suffered twice here, since the very fact of Ask Tom's poor showing was a bitter disappointment after so many months of justifiable optimism. He is also a very modest and likeable man, and hardly the first trainer to keep the punting public in the dark. Owners, they will claim, are the ones who pay the bills and thus the only people who need to be informed when their horse goes wrong, but the fact that this attitude is shared by many of his colleagues does not make it any easier to accept.
In fact, no group of participants in the densely interwoven world of racing can claim independence. The prize money which owners covet and which trainers make their living from is largely obtained from punters via the Levy. They need us every bit as much as we need them.
Indeed, if anything they need us rather more. Racing is glamorous, enthralling and unpredictable, and thus an ideal gambling medium, but it is hardly the only one we have. The erosion of racing's share of the punting market is the cause of much alarm among the sport's administrators, and a problem they have recently started to tackle in earnest, with such ideas as the imminent daily "showpiece" handicap to gather in the betting slips. Yet how much of their hard work was undone in a moment by Tom Tate's secrecy?
Until everyone from the top down is prepared to acknowledge their debt to punters, such incidents will recur, and persuade a few more backers that Manchester United or Liverpool are more deserving vehicles for their cash. At least you can be fairly sure that they are trying - in the Premiership and European competitions, at least - and injuries to key personnel will usually be known before kick-off.
This Wednesday the so-called "Three Wise Men" pondering the future of the betting ring will announce their binding decision on how on-course bookies should be regulated. It is a verdict with immense implications for every punter, even those who never visit a track, since starting prices are returned from the on-course market. Anything which might weaken the ring can only benefit the big off-course bookies in their attempts to influence SPs.
The Racecourse Association originally proposed a system which would have re-introduced betting tax to the track by the back door (until disclosure of their plan in these pages a few months ago prompted a hurried re-think).
Did anyone ever ask the punters for their views? Of course not. Whatever the outcome, it seems, the consumers are simply expected to carry on as before. At best, it is a foolish assumption. At worst, a potentially disastrous one.
Latest in Sport
Arsenal vs Chelsea: Praise to Arsene Wenger for having the courage of his convictions
Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao: The biggest fight of all time, or maybe just the most lucrative?
What time does Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao start?
Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao: What time does it start and where can I watch it?
Chelsea transfer news: 'Eden Hazard will cost Real Madrid £100m - and a Galactico,' says Jose Mourinho
- 2 Why this father didn’t hide his daughter’s heroin overdose in her obituary
- 3 Smartphones are making children borderline autistic, says psychiatrist
- 4 Company breaks open Apple Watch to discover what it says is 'planned obsolescence'
The sickening truth about food banks that the Tories don't want you to know
Migrant boat disaster: Ukip candidate mocks victims in sickening Twitter post
Nigel Farage wants the BBC to stop making programmes like Doctor Who, Strictly Come Dancing, and Top Gear
Global warming: Scientists say temperatures could rise by 6C by 2100 and call for action ahead of UN meeting in Paris
General Election 2015: Chuka Umunna on the benefits of immigration, humility – and his leader Ed Miliband
General Election 2015: Britain would become a 'communist dictatorship' under Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon, claims wife of Michael Gove
£26000 - £28000 per annum + benefits : Ashdown Group: Senior Accounts Assistan...
£24000 - £26000 per annum + benefits : Ashdown Group: A highly successful, glo...
£22000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company is part of a Group...
£16000 - £18000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Are you a a young, dynamic pers...