Politics and Racing: why racing should stick to the National Hunt

General / The Assistant / 25 February 2008 / Leave a Comment

In the second part of a political fortnight, The Assistant says racing should not interfere in wider reaching issues.

Last week this column grappled with the issue of China. As promised, I shall look this week at the role that racing played, and continues to play, in the debate over hunting with hounds.

I know I usually stick to just one topic - stupidity - and that the only weekly variation is the prefix - jockey, trainer, owner or racing administrator. Some may find this move into more cerebral discussion uncomfortable, but I make no apologies. After hearing of the death of Swampy this week, I was reminded that politics is important and worthy of discussion. For those who missed the Swampy news, it turns out he had a heart attack, was rushed into hospital, but refused a bypass.

Racing's apparent pre-occupation with the debate over hunting with hounds is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, as discussed last week, the sport doesn't usually get political, and so it was a change from the norm. Secondly, the way certain individuals characterised the debate gave the false impression that all those in racing opposed the ban, and opposed it for the same reasons.

I, for one, am not pro-hunting. Yes, that's right, a country-girl assistant trainer and I didn't go on a single Countryside Alliance march. But that doesn't mean I particularly supported the ban either - the expense and time given to debating and implementing an unpoliceable law seemed a frivolous act of morality. In general, though, I prefer living in a country whose law discourages rampaging mobs in search of violence.

But to listen to some trainers, you would think all those who work in racing were of one, pro-hunting, voice. Not so. A number of us were pro-hunting, a number against, and our reasons for holding one position on that spectrum over another were varied and nuanced. If anything, the thing agreed on by most was that it wasn't an issue racing should get involved with because, as a sport, it wasn't in our interests to.

However, a vociferous minority couldn't help themselves. And some still can't. Last November, David Hunter, Chief Executive at Fakenham, refused to let Sir Paul McCartney land at the racecourse because of the ex-Beatle's view on hunting.

No doubt Hunter is very proud of the few lines he got in a few newspapers as a result of his stand. But to my eye he looked like the drunk who appears on television and screams: "I love you mum." You have a chance to reach an audience of millions, but choose instead to reach an audience of one. And you tell them what they already know.

Hunter could have engineered a positive story about his racecourse and Sir Paul's decision to land there. Instead he created a petulant rallying cry to an already defeated minority. And in the process, he made himself, and the sport, look petty. That's why racing's involvement with the hunting debate is worthy of analysis: because it gives ample evidence of why sport and politics shouldn't mix.

If you have achieved a level of fame through your involvement in sport (and admittedly, Hunter's level of fame would be fairly low) it is presumably because of a knowledge of, and talent for, that sport in particular. What then gives you the right to comment publicly on anything outside that limited remit?

In a recent issue of a Sunday newspaper, I saw a chart summarising the various celebrity endorsements collected by Democratic Primary candidates and it raised a number of questions. Why do celebrities feel they have a right to exert an influence beyond the reach of most? Why do responsible political leaders let them? And why do media executives cover this inane game of celebrity Top Trumps?

And just as these celebrities should stick to what they are good at - being famous - those in racing should try and retain a similar focus on running the sport that provides them a living, and not concern themselves with matters outside.

For those reasons, I'll give politics a wide berth in this column from now on.