Betfair Official Blog

The Jockeys' Championship debate continues...

The Assistant sets out her stall as a Disrespecter Of Views (note to self: never argue with her)...

Mike responded to last week's article saying he totally disagreed with it, but, as always, fully respected: "other people's views".

Mike belongs to a group of people known as Respecters Of Views, or ROVs for short. These are a collection of folk (not to be confused with an acronymic relation who enjoy music-hall, the lesser-known Respecters Of Vaudeville (ROV)) who feel all liberally virtuous because they think any opinion has some merit.

But why would anyone automatically respect other people's opinion? Surely it depends on the opinion?

As an example, I don't much respect the views of Nazis. For starters, all that straight-arm saluting carry-on is a nonsense. And then there's their dress-sense. And I guess I should mention all that 'killing people' stuff. It's just not for me. And so I've never been, and I'm guessing never will be, a respecter of their views.

So I don't respect the views of Nazis. Nor racists, homophobes or sexists. Nor those lads who think that just because they've sat through a French film they are going to get in my knickers.

I don't respect the views of these types any more than I respect those who willy-nilly go round respecting everyone's views. In fact, you could say I was a Disrespecter Of Views (DOV).

Take Mike's views. In his response to my article about why the Jockey's Championship is a load of tosh he says: "And yes, of course these guys are champions - because they have just won the Jockey's Championship."

That's like saying: "Of course there's a God, He told me!"

It's what philosophers call circulus in probando, or circular reasoning. You can't go about justifying something by making your conclusion identical to the premise, because when you do, my response can only be to open my mouth and gasp - and not in a good way.

In case there's any confusion Mike, I should state that I understand Sanders and Spencer are this year's champions. I wasn't suggesting someone else had actually won, but that those dastardly fellows at the BHA had seen to it that we didn't hear about it.

No, I was saying two things. First, the way the Jockey's Championship is constructed gives us "champions" who have not necessarily achieved the most in a season.

Second, (and this was the main thrust of the article) as a sport we shouldn't promote jockeys because the general public are unable to identify what it is they do. Far better to promote horses, because the concept of one creature being faster than another is something anyone can understand.

And to argue that this year's Championship must have been good because it got a lot of coverage is almost as laughable as your God is God because he's God attempt.

The current trial of three jockeys at the Old Bailey has, and will continue to, generate far more coverage than any climax to a Jockey's Championship could, and yet who would argue that this benefits the sport?

My non-racing friends couldn't care less about the exploits of Sanders and Spencer and weren't sure why they had to hear daily updates on how well they steered a horse that day. These were the same friends who showed genuine interest when Kauto Star went for the final leg of the Betfair Million.

So my point was, and is, let's choose the times when we promote our sport more widely very carefully. And when we do have something to talk about, let's make sure that jockeys are as far from the headlines as possible.