PERILS OF THE JOB REAFFIRMED AS CAT LOSES A LIFE

Many of those of us watching Racing UK’s coverage of Newbury last Saturday saw unfurl before our eyes the latest example of one of racing’s most unfortunate, conspicuous, hard to disguise errors. Mike Cattermole mistook Mick Fitzgerald on Khyber Kim for the rather less stylish amateur Mike Lurcock on 200-1 outsider Levantine until the final flight of a novices’ hurdle, and in so doing stimulated a degree of debate on assorted racing fora as to the culpability of commentators versus the art of trusting one's own eyes alone in reading a race.

More so than most jobs in the racing media, commentating is a job with no safety net, and nowhere to hide if the wrong horse is called the winner or – especially with the increasing prevalence of exchanges and in-running options – incorrectly said to have departed the contest. Any error, no matter how small, is likely to cause a ruction of whatever size somewhere on course, in a bookmakers or on internet betting exchanges, and it must be the hope of any commentator that if such a fate absolutely has to befall them, it does so in the most minor of contests rather than the Cheltenham Gold Cup or Derby.

That was certainly the case for Graham Goode, whose mis-calling of a race winner at Musselburgh in June 2006 came, luckily for him, in a four-runner juvenile seller that passed without much lasting comment beyond a few initial tut-tuts as to how it was possible to make such a mistake with a tiny field. For all that it was not one of the bigger meetings at the Berkshire track, Cattermole’s Newbury error would nonetheless have been heard – and felt – by more people, and attracted a larger negative reaction.

Much of that reaction, originating from some of cyberspace’s more excitable inhabitants, was predicated on the belief (certainly not shared here) that Cattermole was not fit for purpose at such a prestigious track, and should be removed straight away; and also on the belief that he should not be paid a sizeable sum only to deliver what on this occasion proved to be a flawed performance.

The latter is a fair comment up to a point. Up until around five years ago (the latest figure this writer possesses, taken from a Racing Post article on the profession), a commentator on the Racetech roster would be paid around £475 a day including expenses, even if the meeting he was booked for ultimately fell foul of the weather on his arrival. With the most popular commentators on the roster currently calling between 80 and 90 meetings a year, it becomes clear that many Racetech employees are certainly well rewarded for their efforts (even before other engagements for the likes of Channel 4 and the two specialist racing channels are factored in).

This is not money willingly handed over by Racetech without any questions being asked of the recipient’s performance as necessary, though. How could it be, when certain commentators - Kel Mansfield, Johnnie Turner, Mike Vince, Ben Newton, Andy Orkney and Jon Hickman since 2003 alone, for example - have been removed from the roster, rather than left it of their own volition? The point to make about this sextet, however, is that their departure from the roster was not instant, not overnight, but was instead due to the cumulative effect of mistakes and / or loss of confidence in them, rather than one solitary error.

It may be useful to divulge a little background into how racetracks are allotted commentators for their meetings at this stage. As with a couple of the details referred to in this piece, this represents the method in use up to a couple of years ago at least, but nothing in more recent conversations with several racing media figures familiar with the process has expressly indicated that this is no longer in use. All corrections are gratefully received.

In its simplest terms, racecourses, bookmakers and other interested parties are surveyed periodically to provide lists of commentators that they would prefer to have engaged at meetings at given tracks in future. The contents of these lists are then received by Racetech, whereupon all commentators to be retained are allotted as appropriate a suite of meetings as those lists and their own individual ration of engagements – from 20 to 30 for most rookies to around 90 for the premier callers – will permit.

It is reasonable to assume that some commentators will be more over-subscribed than others, and that the most popular - Richard Hoiles, Simon Holt and John Hunt, perhaps - would have to work for a prodigious number of days in the year to meet the requests of all the lists to the letter. Clearly that isn’t going to happen, and a greater degree of compromise / "best fit" has to be exercised in such instances.

In others, certain commentators are recognised as best fitting the ethos of particular racecourses. For example, Iain Mackenzie’s most common haunts of Cartmel, Fakenham, Hereford, Huntingdon, Ludlow and Perth are spread out over a huge geographical area, but are mostly rural tracks with a fair number of hunters’ chases run – very apposite for the co-author of the amateur sport’s annual. In yet other instances, the geographical location of some commentators is brought to bear, which helps explain why Phil Curry, Doug Fraser and Malcolm Tomlinson, all based in the North, are regulars in Yorkshire and further up the country than that.

These lists are not submitted any more regularly than annually, so any loss of faith in a commentator caused by significant error is unlikely to register anywhere until the first subsequent list is compiled however many months later. Even then, human nature can be such that a course executive will take the view that accidents do happen, and that the caution that the offending commentator may get from Racetech subsequently will rate as sufficient punishment.

Clearly having built up a bank of goodwill never does any harm either, which may explain why Hickman, a longer-standing fixture on the roster, was able not only to survive calling the wrong winner in a race at Chepstow in 2003 but also continue to be used most enthusiastically by the Monmouthshire venue for three more years; whereas the luckless Vince was dropped in his first and only year on the roster despite a small series of minor mistakes during the year rather than one notably huge one. The latter does still call a small handful of meetings at Aintree and Ascot, however, albeit at the invitation of the day's race sponsors rather than that of Racetech.

So where does all the above leave Mike Cattermole? In the immediate aftermath he was certainly mortified and contrite, though those visiting the subsequent Newbury races on the Racing Post video archive individually in the future may well query the origin of the slightly crestfallen tone of the commentary in those races and a nervous attempted pun on the name of Souffleur in the feature race. No course looks to have taken it upon itself to demand for someone else for its subsequent meetings, however, and nor should any; and the smooth, professional, affable delivery that has otherwise typified Cattermole's near 15-year (and counting) career as a Rules commentator ought to return to the fore soon enough.

This won’t have been an afternoon he will forget lightly, with any caution resonating in his ears from Racetech’s senior management likely to make doubly sure of that. As with falling off a horse, however, the best thing a man commentating on them can do after a mishap is dust himself off and get on with it, and that he undoubtedly will have to do – reputations take seconds to dent, far longer to build or, as here, restore.

As regards the punters calling for Cattermole's head after mistaking Khyber Kim and Levantine, the incident should serve as a reminder to them that however good our current raft of commentators undoubtedly is (arguably the best ever), there is usually no substitute for trusting one’s own eyes above anything else; and there was some very easy money to be made laying in-running for those who were both able to tell the – considerable – difference between messrs Fitzgerald and Lurcock, and were quick enough to do something about it.