THE loss of Cheltenham’s December Gold Cup and the International Hurdle due to frost sparked quite an interesting online debate, with several people arguing that Cheltenham ought to have sacrificed Friday’s inferior card in order to maximise the chance of racing on Saturday.

The first thing to point out here is that under current rules, there was no option of doing so other than by lying about the feasibility of racing on the first of the two days, while many also pointed out that calling off Friday when the ground was raceable only to find that a second frost meant that racing also had to be cancelled on Saturday would have drawn much greater criticism than with what actually transpired.

But there is a more obvious solution to this problem with high-profile meetings which stretch over two or more days.

When the enemy is extreme cold, then the current frost covers provide a degree of protection which will usually allow a track to survive quite a sharp frost if the temperature rises above freezing before and during racing.

The real problem lies with how quickly the covers can be put down again, and at this time of year, if the temperature is due to dip below freezing again overnight, it will often do so by the time the sun begins to set.

Repairs

That rarely gives enough time after the last race to allow for repairs to the ground (replacing of divots and filling in) before ground frost sets in. That was the issue with Cheltenham last weekend, and Hexham lost a meeting the previous week because the filling in previous divots had frozen.

It’s clear that where there is a cycle of frost-thaw-frost, that racing at a particular venue is much more likely to go ahead on the first of two or more scheduled days than it is on subsequent days with similar forecast.

With this example of diminishing returns, it makes perfect sense for racecourse to load the better races at a fixture on the opening day, whereas the tendency with a Friday-Saturday fixture currently is to backload the quality on the second day, with the expectation of a bigger crowd.

The obvious problem is that Saturday is the day of greatest exposure for the better races in terms of audience participation, and the obvious solution is that at this time of year, such fixtures would work better if run on Saturday-Sunday than Friday-Saturday.

For the UK’s biggest racecourses, racing on Sunday is not a popular approach, but Newmarket has made running a classic on a Sunday perfectly feasible, and Cheltenham has enjoyed tremendous success with its only Sunday raceday at the November meeting.

Given the size of the crowd which attends that each year, it’s hard to argue that Sunday racing is a turn-off for the public.

Creative thinking is crucial if racing is to thrive in a difficult environment, and this suggestion is far to reasonable to simply ignore.

Jon Pullin has barely got his feet under the table at Cheltenham, but he will be keen to be able to make positive changes in his role as Director of Racing at Britain’s premier jumps course, and this seems a pretty safe hill on which to make a stand. I look forward to a change of approach in coming seasons.

Punter discord in affordability farce

FOR some time, those connected with the gambling industry in the UK have been waiting with trepidation for the publication of the UK Government’s white paper on proposed gambling reforms, but such is shambolic nature of the current political leadership that the publication of this critical document has been postponed several times.

As a result, gambling operators have effectively been guessing as to what they will be called upon to do under new legislation, and that has tended towards the heavy-handed in its extent.

The result is that many punters are having draconian deposit limits foisted upon them or are being forced to divulge information such as full bank statements, wage slips and tax returns, which for many is a step too far from an industry many feel is already playing fast and loose with personal information.

The reason such measures are needed is a desire to protect the vulnerable, particularly those who struggle to cope with possible gambling addiction, and for whom a sensible limit on gambling spend is a potential life-saver.

Individual views

The problem is not just that a lack of clarity sees the possibility of the baby being lost with the bathwater of so-called “problem gambling,” but that the very fact that different gambling firms are taking individual views as to what is required to comply with this nebulous legislation means that it’s still very possible for the vulnerable to continue slipping through the net.

Racing needs betting revenue, but betting firms need to protect betting revenue while at the same time ensuring that such revenue comes from a safe source.

A scenario where those who shouldn’t be betting heavily are encouraged to do so while a cohort of safe bettors remove themselves from the betting ecosystem is the worst of both worlds, but a reluctance by racing’s governors to ensure new betting operators are willing to abide by an agreed code of conduct in the way they treat customers is damaging both the sport and the racing industry.

It’s also incumbent on betting operators to find common ground so that their customers, many of which are shared, are given a positive and largely uniform experience, lest they simply take their custom away.

It’s not like betting operators don’t share knowledge, but the perception is that they seem to do so in a self-serving manner which has been the source of much discord amongst the punting community.