ITV racing must ensure someone speaks up for punters

Rich Ricci has done a lot for the finances of jump racing in Ireland, enabling it to recover from the collapse of the Celtic tiger. He - or technically his wife - owned 5 of the winners at Cheltenham this week. Fair play to him, for spending lots of money does not guarantee even one win in what is effectively the world championships. He has obviously spent his share of the profits and bonuses from Barclay's Capital wisely, even if some of the shareholders who lost out may have misgivings.
The Ricci openess with the racing public has been welcome as well, but obviously we discovered at the beginning of this week that perhaps he is not so open about his horses and the plans as we thought. Indeed many punters felt that the #fatcatinahat had 'put them away' and treated them as mugs.
At the Cheltenham preview evenings in the run up to the event, including one organised by Ricci's own betting company BetBright, the American in the trilby and sunglasses told us all about how his horses were going and where and when they would run. In the case of one of his best, Vautour, Ricci was on the record repeatedly that the horse would run in the Gold Cup; "it's the Gold Cup or nothing."
As a result the price for Vautour was short for the Gold Cup and his price for the Ryanair (a less prestigious race over a shorter distance than the Gold Cup and his only other possible option) drifted out to 4-1 plus.
On the night before the festival the odds on the betting exchange dramatically changed, with Vautour's odds for the Gold Cup drifting, and him coming into odds-on for the Ryanair. Clearly some people in the know (i.e. connected to Ricci or the Mullins stable, where the horse is trained) had information not available to the ordinary punter and were taking advantage.
The inevitable then happened on Channel 4's Morning Line the following morning when their guest, the great man himself, announced to the awe-struck panel of Channel 4 presenters, that Vautour would be declared for and running in the Ryanair, thereby missing the Gold Cup which we had been told would be the target all along.
What then followed was the most lamentable and feeble sports journalism, which those involved with Channel 4 Racing must surely be embarrassed by. The chairman of the panel, Alice Plunkett, seemed completely out of her depth and none of the highly paid pundits made the slightest effort to challenge Ricci on the way punters had been misled repeatedly.
There was a bit of storm on racing related social media - I even had a little Mr Angry go myself - which presumably prompted Channel 4 to invite Ricci back on to the main programme in the afternoon to explain his action. On this occasion he was interviewed by national treasure, and the normally excellent, Clare Balding. She though proved to not be up to the job either, allowing Ricci to turn the whole debacle into a brilliant publicity stunt for his betting company. He promised to pay-out on Vautour, as if the horse had won the Gold Cup, to all punters who had backed him with BetBright for that race. Clare's reaction to this was an almost awe-struck, "Oh wow, how generous of you Rich, you are going to payout even though he is not running?".
She completely missed the point that it was not those who had backed Vautour who had really lost out, as most of those punters would have received their money back as a result of the 'non-runner no-bet' conditions now widely available.
No the punters who had really done their money were those who had backed the other horses due to run in the Ryanair, whose odds were much lower as a result of the firm commitment that Ricci's horse would not run.
The inevitable happened and Vautour won the Ryanair easily. This was despite him only "being 90%" (yeh, right), one of the weakest excuses offered by Ricci and Mullins for the change in plans.
On reflection my criticism of Rich Ricci - and also Willie Mullins - are muted. They are perfectly entitled to run - or not run - their horses as they choose. They have hopefully learnt their communication lessons, and either will stick with their announced plans or be more equivocal in future.
No it is the Channel 4 racing team that come out of this worst. Their journalism was feeble at best. You have pundits on - including sadly AP McCoy - who promote bookmakers during the ad breaks, which in any other sphere of life would be considered a conflict of interest. The professional journalists appeared to not know part of their subject, and are more keen to suck up to their racing pals than to speak up for those people who ultimately fund racing, the betting public.
John McCririck, for all his many faults, would never have allowed this to pass by, and would have been all over Ricci. Sadly his descent into pantomime sexism meant he had to go, and his replacements come from a training/bookmaking background instead and just carry out cosy interviews, often simply giving bookmakers' PRs the chance to plug their products.
There is though a chance for this to change, with ITV winning the contract to broadcast UK horse racing from 2017. With the exception of the peerless Nick Luck, none of the current Channel 4 presenters deserve to transfer over after their performance this week. To retain credibility with the betting public, ITV must make sure that at least one of the new presenters come from a background of placing bets rather than bookmaking, and speaks up for the hard pressed punter. My choice would be Dave Nevison or Eddie Fremantle, although of course if they are unavailable I would be willing to do my bit!  

Advertising by bookmakers persuaded ITV bosses to bid for the horse racing

The big off track news for horse racing over the new year was ITV 'winning' the rights to televise the sport from 1 January 2017. Underrated journalist Lee Mottershead of the Racing Post got the scoop, which was then well covered in the back pages of most of the papers.
Racing was officially the third most popular spectator sport in the UK last year, after football and rugby union. With attendance at racecourses continuing to rise, it is likely to overtake rugby in 2016. It was only the World Cup which boosted rugby above horse racing in 2015.
Analysis of this development has focused on the poor viewing figures obtained by Channel 4 and some surprise in non-racing circles that ITV bosses were willing to pay the widely quoted £36m figure. 
Channel 4's coverage has been technically proficient but all too cosy and comfortable. The presenters seem too often to be personal friends with the jockeys and trainers they highlight (witness all the praise they have been heaping on new trainer Kerry Lee in recent weeks). This closeness to the subjects hampers objective analysis, with the featured pundits rarely willing to criticise jockeys, trainers or administrators in the way that, for example, the best Sky Sports cricket broadcasters do.
Betting is obviously a huge factor in racing. Since John McCririck was sacked from Channel 4 Racing, proper questioning of dubious bookmaking practice has completely ceased. 'Big Mac's' pantomime sexism belonged in the 1970's, but he knew his subject inside out and was a proper journalist. Representatives of the big bookmakers are now invited on to the programme simply to advertise their prices and special offers (the product), and are never held to account on behalf of the punter.
Interestingly one point largely missed in the coverage of the TV deal, is the significant part played by the betting industry in making horse racing attractive to ITV again. The bigger audiences that ITV can deliver will make advertising during the racing very attractive to bookmakers. ITV bosses rightly anticipate that this will be a very lucrative revenue stream.
This potential conflict of interest will need to be closely watched. An independently minded betting correspondent willing to speak their mind will be essential to punter confidence in the new ITV(7) coverage. Gosh I'd like that job!