TONY CALVIN: A few questions about Saturday’s ground at Uttoxeter – with a Monday update from BHA

BHA’s response to the question from yesterday (that question can be seen below) – updated 2.55pm Monday

“The BHA General Instructions state the following requirements:

BHAGI 3.2 para 4 (iv)

For the benefit of the racecourse as a management tool, accurate records of the following must be kept, the frequency depending on the course’s fixture programme: irrigation applied in inches or millimetres over given periods and areas;

BHAGI 3.2 para 22

When irrigation has taken place within the previous 72 hrs, the description should be given as, for example, Good to Firm (irrigating), or Good to Firm (irrigated) (when the irrigation process has been completed).

The amount of water applied should be specified.

Should a racecourse provide information which does not meet the requirements then this will be raised with the racecourse and via the RCA, and could lead to follow up action if viewed as necessary.

Should there be a complaint around an incorrect Going Description, the inspectorate will review by requesting all the records leading up to the fixture to determine if the Going description was accurate. Again, if it’s found to not have been, then this could be found to be a breach of the BHAGIs and further action may, in certain circumstances, be taken.

Obviously we can’t provide specifics as to the two instances in question, but hopefully this gives an overview of what is required.

For Cheltenham it’s worth noting that they produce this for each fixture: Cheltenham Going Updates | Cheltenham Racecourse our ambition longer-term is that every racecourse produces this for each fixture.”

——

Piss-take away….

Now, I know plenty take the piss about my seeming obsession with ground, going stick readings and the weather in general – and if they want the laughs at my expense, it is no skin off my arse, as we have all got more important things to worry about – but what happened at Uttoxeter this week is simply not on.

And I’d throw Cheltenham into the equation too, as they gave no details of the amounts of the watering they put on any of their three tracks from March 6^th onwards on the publicly available BHA site.

Sure, Cheltenham clerk of the course Jon Pullin answered questions about this on Racing TV, but not many people would have had access to that subscription channel.

Everyone has access to the public BHA site, yet nothing appeared.

Why?

More of that in a minute.

Events at Uttoxeter on Saturday were very unsatisfactory 

However, events at Uttoxeter on Saturday were deeply unsatisfactory, to say the very least.

Now, with a dry spell, I accept that courses have to water.

But I can’t think of a worse example than the way Uttoxeter handled the communications, and their execution, around their watering for Saturday’s meeting.

And punters were very badly done to here.

More of that in a minute, too.

Uttoxeter started watering last Tuesday, but at no point did they give any details of the amounts they were putting on.

All very Secret Squirrel once again.

In the course’s defence, they did update their going stick readings during the week.

And it was actually one of those on Friday morning that raised a red flag with me.

This could have been seen coming 

In my column on Friday morning, I wrote the following, the thrust of which I had previously posted on X.

It read:

“A word of warning.

“I think it may ride softer than advertised (good to soft) on the (Uttoxeter) chase course here after watering yesterday and again this morning (no amounts given).

“In fact, they have been watering daily since Tuesday.

“The stick reading (was) 4.6 on the chase course at 7.45am Friday. It was 5.7 on Thursday at 7:45am,  and they’ve had just 1mm of rain since.

“Mmmm…”

And this is the timeline of information on the BHA site as regards Uttoxeter, as I also put in my Saturday column (Cheltenham was no better).

Watering history – Saturday: “Watered”;  Friday: “Watering to maintain”; Thursday: “Selective light watering to maintain”; Wednesday “Selective watering to maintain:; Tuesday: “Watering in progress” .

It was readily apparent that they must have seriously watered throughout Thursday to make that much of a difference to the stick readings, and the chickens really came home to roost on Saturday.

Everyone saw the ground wasn’t anything like good to soft, and the times/stats backed up the visuals.

In fact, Kevin Winterton on X alerted me to the comment from trainer Mel Rowley in the Racing Post on Saturday morning.

Rowley said: “I know they are doing their very best to make it as soft as they can”.

FFS.

So what was the ground?

Proform have assessed the times and they have the hurdles track as soft, and the chase course as heavy.

Yet Uttoxeter didn’t change the going at all throughout the day, and the form book, and the Racing Post results, will tell you it was good to soft on Saturday.

Which is plain nonsense.

It wasn’t good to soft.

For balance, someone pointed out to me that the times were faster than last year, and historically at the track we would be looking at a mixture of soft and heavy.

Timeform currently have it down as good to soft too at the moment, but I’m told that will almost certainly be revised later today when they have a proper look (Timeform have gone with soft).

So what is going on here?

TV stations need to call this out

Now, I didn’t watch Sky Sports Racing or ITV to any great degree on Saturday – I flicked over from the rugby to watch three of the seven races – but you’d hope they will have questioned and warned their viewers to the unfolding bleedin’ obvious.

I did see Alex Hammond and Mick Fitzgerald talking about the watering and ground on SSR before racing, which was inadequate and almost apologetic towards the course, and Luke Harvey did say he interviewed jockeys after each race, which is fair enough.

But come on.

For example, why wouldn’t they have referenced that going stick shift above when interviewing the clerk and pressed for details of just how much she had put down on each of the five days?

They may have done, I guess, but it is odds-against.

Likewise, ITV, who had a reporter at the track, even if they were still stationed at Cheltenham.

Uttoxeter were still watering on Saturday morning.

If the media simply ignore it (and interviewing jockeys and trainers does not really cut it as an adequate journalistic response) they are doing the betting public, and their audience, a huge disservice.

Punters being kept in the dark  – and trainers not happy, either

Punters are being kept in the dark, and that is simply not on.

Would punters have laid mudlover Mr Vango at double-figure prices – he went off at 11s, and at 15.5 at Betfair SP of 15.52 – had the ground been changed to heavy beforehand?

And the same applies to every horse running at the meeting to varying degrees.

So feel free to take the rise about my obsession, but I’ll continue to rattle on in this area, thanks, as it is important.

It is just one aspect of the punting puzzle granted, but an important one, all the same.

One leading trainer contacted me on Saturday evening – “that Uttoxeter ground is a disgrace after the way it was advertised earlier in the week” – and, referring to the Harvey jockey interviews (which I didn’t see but heard about), it was clear some of the riders were not chuffed, even if they won on the card, calling it “typical of watered ground”.

One thing that puzzles me is just why all courses don’t front up and give timely, accurate details of the levels of watering on the BHA site.

It should be a requisite – and that is perhaps the most important aspect here, not individual cases like Cheltenham and Uttoxeter.

If courses water, they should be obligated to tell punters how much.

Some courses, like Sandown, are great at this, even if that track does not lack for criticism with the racing surface on certain days when they have watered.

I’ve put a question to the BHA about what courses are actually required to do, as it stands

I asked the BHA’s communications team this question this morning.

“What do you require of courses – or indeed what are courses obliged to do – when it comes to them giving detailed information of their watering policy in the run-up to meetings on the publicly-available BHA site?

“Cheltenham gave no details of the amounts they put on the tracks when watering commenced on March 6th – ahead of the biggest betting week of the year – and Uttoxeter similarly gave none on the BHA site in the five days of daily watering leading up their meeting on Saturday.

“This can obviously have major betting implications.”

They kindly passed this on to the relevant department, and I’ll post the answer here when I get a response.

Given it is a Sunday, it could be imminently, later this afternoon, or tomorrow – understandably so, as we all have a life away from work – but you’ll get it, in full, when I do.

Hopefully, things can change.

Feel free to take the piss in the meantime, though….