IT’S not often I feel like defending Mark Johnston, as the Middleham-based Scottish trainer rarely makes any bones about the way he puts his opinion across, and seems to revel in the fact that his bluntness winds others up. As such, he doesn’t need any protection from the arrows which fly back at him, but as is so often the case, the comments attributed to him in the Racing Post, and the attempted rebuttal of them by representatives of the bookmaking fraternity don’t even form a coherent argument.

Johnston’s initial broadside came via his own ‘Bletherings’ blog, when he compared the imminent switch of racing coverage to ITV with the unsuccessful relaunch of Top Gear, and concluded by saying: “The Morning Line have done little or nothing to make the programme appeal to anyone other than punters and, personally, I think it should be possible to produce a programme that appeals to all the family. Here’s hoping.”

He expanded on this viewpoint in an interview with the Post’s David Carr at the launch of the 2016 Go Racing In Yorkshire Festival, again making the Top Gear analogy, and followed it with the sucker punch, from which many in the bookmaking circles still seem to be reeling: “They should get rid of all the coverage of betting. I totally understand the relationship between racing and betting, but the coverage is ridiculous and it’s bad for both industries.”

It’s obvious to most that, taken at face value, Johnston’s assertion is wrongheaded, and that to ignore betting is to ignore what drives the racing industry forward, but there is a difference between betting and talking about betting, and it makes more sense to look at the trainer’s complaint in the light of that knowledge, and fighting the knee-jerk reaction which is to react to the deliberate anti-betting rhetoric from a man who has plenty of previous on the matter.

INEXTRICABLE LINK

The argument that racing broadcasting on terrestrial television appeals only to punters while alienating a potential family audience is one which needs to be taken seriously.

Certainly, racing and betting are, and always have been inextricably linked, but while betting is more than ever central to the funding of the sport, and a huge draw to new customers, it is what C.S Lewis would have referred to as a second thing, when he wrote: “Put first things first and we get second things thrown in: put second things first and we lose both first and second things. We never get, say, even the sensual pleasure of food at its best when we are being greedy.”

While Lewis was writing about something higher, the principle is still the same; we need to put things in proper order in order to gain most from them. If we elevate betting on horse racing above the sport itself, then we run the risk of losing the sport, and with it the attached pleasure of betting.

This has already happened with the notion that more racing equals more betting which will benefit all parties, and there is a danger that racing coverage will lose appeal if ITV take the view that racing is simply fodder for betting, and therefore it’s the latter which needs to be pushed.

This isn’t true – the desire to find a winner is purely natural, and promoting the racehorse as the fundamental star of the show does not in any way diminish the appeal of betting.

It is absolutely correct that the live coverage of a race meeting should concentrate heavily on the puzzle of finding the winner in the minutes leading up to each race, and discussion of the betting markets is a crucial aspect of that puzzle.

EXCHANGE-DOMINATED WORLD

On the other hand, the appeal of shows like the Morning Line should lie less in betting and more in the wider appeal of the sport, looking both forward and back in a way which increases the appreciation of the viewer. Some 30 years ago, there was something to learn by listening to an analysis of bookmakers’ morning prices, and the reasons for discrepancies, but in an exchange-dominated world, there is simply no appeal in morning betting markets, and wheeling on one of a plethora of bookmaker reps to explain that they’ve “seen plenty of money for Betfair arbs and Pricewise selections” is as big a turn-off as I can imagine.

Similarly, in a market predicated more on efficiency than the power of big money, covering the morning betting moves is akin to having Jim Bowen put his arm around your shoulder and say “look at what you could have won.”

To that end, Channel 4 deserve plaudits for a recent feature which saw Nick Luck given a tour of historic Newmarket from the irrepressible Sir Mark Prescott. It made for compelling viewing, not least because the host seemed genuinely moved by it, and is exactly the kind of thing the new broadcaster needs to pick up on if they want to increase their audience.

It’s understandable that advertising revenue is important, and racing is a much more viable broadcasting option since bookmakers were allowed to advertise, and there is no desire to turn the clock back on that scenario, however annoying Kayvan Novak’s ‘Royal Box’ shtick is getting at the umpteenth viewing.

It is, however, essential to promote horse racing as a sport and an industry in its own right, and that’s arguably not been done in recent years. Get the first things first, and the second things will surely follow.