when low-lifes overstep the mark.

​I have given the report in Sunday’s Racing Post on the on-line abuse that jockeys and trainers have to contend with and cannot come-up with any constructive thought other than to live life without social media. Of course, if those who make big bucks from social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, etc – were to prevent anyone posting messages from behind a screen of anonymity there would be no problem to overcome. But until every on-line message is easily traced the only answer is to de-platform, if that is the correct term.
As you may have guessed, I speak from ignorance on this subject as I have no social media presence. Never have, never will. Mainly because I do not want to be confronted by the illiteracy, downright filth and needless profanity that accompanies a good majority of the postings. If there is a line in the sand when it comes electronic communication social media fell well below it very soon after the invention of the World Wide Web.
Young people have been groomed by government and the media companies to believe that to live without a smart phone would render life not worth living. By now, the same can most likely apply to those in the middle-age bracket and the elderly who use their hand-held devices to keep in touch with family and friends, especially when they live alone. I could write more about the dangers of smart phones but that is not the point of this piece.
My conclusion is that unless racing folk divorce themselves from social media they will just have to suck-up vile messages and learn to laugh at the imbeciles who send them. In the Racing Post report, the jockeys featured seemed to believe that as they get older, they are immured from the effects of such anonymous messages, though they believed the younger members of the weighing room, those starting out in their careers, might not be as able to dismiss unwarranted criticism. P.J. McDonald is of the opinion that I in 10 jockeys could easily have their careers harmed by receiving baseless criticism from the untutored, the pig-ignorant (an insult to pigs, I would suggest) and the clueless.
I did have two thoughts on the subject, neither of which may be tenable and might have little or no effect. But here goes.
Jockeys seem to be starting out at a very young age these days. Those with pony racing experience are having their first rides in public almost fully-formed. But no matter how well they ride, they remain immature, perhaps unable to cope with any abuse they might receive on social media. It would do no harm, I believe, if jockey licences were not issued until the boy or girl is seventeen, rather than sixteen as it is at present. Fern O’Brien, admittedly an amateur, had her first ride, a winner, days after her sixteenth birthday.
My idea is that between the ages of sixteen and seventeen young jockeys should only be permitted to ride as amateurs. It did Ryan Moore no harm to start his career as an amateur. Thus, allowing them a full year to get into the routine of being a jockey, learning the job behind the anonymity of the Corinthian code of riding. This system would, perhaps, to a degree, separate the wheat from the chaff, allowing the young riders to turn professional with greater confidence than at present. It will not in itself do anything about vile criticism that will come there way via social media but they might have enough experience, have gained wise counsel from their peers in the weighing room, to know how to cop a deaf ear to the vileness that cometh their way.
My second thought is the B.H.A., or anyone, should start a Facebook page where jockeys could post the vile messaging they receive so that the public can get a handle on the severity of the problem, with perhaps a petition page to have Facebook do something about the gross unfairness of the situation. It is always best to take control of a situation as sitting back and doing nothing because you don’t think anything will help rarely achieves any benefit.