Tongue ties for commentators?
We noted recently racing organisations seem to pick the moment when everyone is watching as the moment to wheel out their worst. Hong Kong Jockey Club, though, is well ahead of the curve, using Sunday's prelude to produce an embarrassing new line of video coverage.
What was that epilepsy-inducing mish-mash in the post-race vision for the international trial races? Chopping and changing through the replay so we could watch from the inside, outside, topside and groundside, all at once. It even made the Japanese coverage of races look OK.
Actually, we know what this was - the visual equivalent of Bracket Win, designed by somebody who should spend less time at Kee Club. (Probably the same dingbat who came up with the 'pass through' replay of the pulling-up stage of races on the club's website. Really. What is that about?)
We only hope this stupidity was an experiment and that, once aired, it failed to get a pass and will never be seen again.
The ability to project poorly to the world takes many forms, and takes some doing in Hong Kong, where racing is staged at least as well as anywhere.
Yet, word on the street is that the Jockey Club is risking making itself look foolish with a step into the censorship abyss, stung by mentions of track bias recently.
While on the track bias issue, the last two B courses at Happy Valley have been bizarre. There has looked to be a quicksand belt on the inside of the straight, and yet it is not difficult to find horses that went back into the bayou and still ran well. It has been as easy to agree with the notion as to dismiss it - a matter of opinion.
But back to censorship.
Even tongue ties for the on-air commentators are being designed, with grounds for dismissal including making comments about Hong Kong racing which are regarded as negative. That phrase covers a lot of ground and looks rich, fertile soil for a legal mind. A definition of negative requires attention, but is it even possible?
Most, maybe even all of the comments made about races are subjective. They are opinions and opinions drive the betting market.
The view that a strong bias existed at Happy Valley last week to make the job tough for the next low-drawn favourite only drove turnover on other runners. A horse which looks fit and well to one, might look off its game to another. It's all yin and yang and nobody is correct even 50 per cent of the time.
The best turnover races are those where most are adamant the contest lies between three or four warm favourites and the computer syndicates disagree and bet down horses at longer odds. The two butt heads and turnover is the winner.
Track bias, its presence and extent are subjective concepts that drive turnover in one way or another, but not everyone will agree, like all underlying factors in a race. If commentators are not being paid to push an opinion, just throw out the pre-race tips and commentaries, show silent vision of horses walking around for 20 minutes and let viewers do their best. The point of having commentators' opinions, good, bad or indifferent, is that they may offer something bettors had not considered, or put a different light on something obvious. Or they have the empathy with the public to say what the punters, the customers, are thinking. But it is still an opinion.
Like much of what is heard on the street, the rumour of censorship as the caravan of international racing rolls to town might simply not be right. But it might be, too.
By all means, make the club look like Kim Jong-il Lite, but censorship of commentary looks like pompous incompetence against the real life facts that tracks do suffer wear and tear, that horses do have aches and pains, that jockeys ride bad races or that some decisions by club officials at all levels are made in error.
