One of the first times that I went to a thoroughbred racetrack, many years ago, I was brought down to the paddock to see the horses before a race. I leaned up against the fence as thoroughbreds paraded in front of the saddling enclosure. To my left and behind a chain link fence, five jockeys gathered, smoking their cigarettes and chatting, presumably about the next race. Five feet from them, a large sign advised me and anyone else on the premises that the public was strictly prohibited from talking with jockeys.
As I watched various trainers, officials and track personnel walk in and out of that enclosure, I thought, if only I could eavesdrop on those conversations I would have revealed the elusive secrets of the racetrack.
I didn’t at the time question why I was banned from talking to the riders. I assumed that a dialogue would in some way jeopardize the running of the race, or distract the jockeys. Afterall, we’re not invited as hockey fans into the dressing room before each game, why would we be permitted to talk with drivers or jockeys?
But as my familiarity with racing, both thoroughbred and standardbred grew, I started questioning the messages we were sending to our customers. If it is not acceptable for fans to talk with jockeys or drivers before a race why is it acceptable to have them change in the same locker room or chat privately among one another?
When you work around the industry for a few years, you begin to understand that those private discussions behind that chain-link fence are likely to be about virtually anything other than strategy for the next race. Racing has always struggled with the ‘insider’s game’ label.
Let’s keep in mind that in this equation, the bettor is the investor. He takes the information he is provided and places his hard-earned, after tax dollars on these horses and the person in charge of steering them. If he were buying stocks of a company he could check online or talk to his advisor as to the direction the company is planning to move. As a big enough stock trader, he could call up the President of the organization and ask the question: “What are your plans? I want to know before I invest.”
If there is anything we’ve learned from virtually every Wall Street scandal in history, anything short of total transparency is a path to ruin.
That brings us, strangely enough, to Mark MacDonald.
One day in April, MacDonald picked up his iPhone and, with a little help from his brother Curtis, signed up for a Twitter account and began an experiment. Communicating directly with the public before, during and after race-cards, MacDonald revealed not only his thoughts on his horses, but the strategy he planned to employ before many of his races.
Just moments before a wire-to-wire win, he told his “followers” to expect an aggressive drive. In other races, he wrote that he’d need racing luck to find the winner’s circle.
Using technology of 2010, MacDonald began offering a level of transparency that many of us have been hoping for for decades. His twittering between races comes on the heels of a couple of progressive moves by the Ontario Racing Commission, to begin explaining, on television, controversial judge’s decisions made at Woodbine Entertainment’s tracks, and to provide a blog on Standardbred Canada’s website giving insight into on-track rulings from across the province.
Harness racing may be a little late to the party, but seeing its officials and stars embrace the Internet is extremely encouraging. Brad Forward’s blog from last year’s World Driving Championship in Norway and Jody Jamieson’s recent blog from Finland reveal that our drivers are willing to go above and beyond to do their part to move the game forward.
As for MacDonald’s bold actions, I’ve already heard rumblings from some who believe that his tweets (messages of 140 characters or less) are not good for the game.
I will take the other side of the argument as I struggle to see the difference between interviews given before races from the paddock and this type of direct communication to the public. And I hope to see a day when racing can take the lead in this area, perhaps one day having each driver comment on their intentions before every race.
Imagine a newcomer coming to the track and opting for the “Interactive program” where they can watch and listen to the drivers giving their thoughts on upcoming races. I don’t see why asking each reinsman to express up to 140 characters about their horses that night is a stretch.
For now, we can thank Mark MacDonald for his actions and hope that eventually, transparency will rule the day.
Darryl Kaplan
[email protected]