"The Art of Saying Nothing at All: Racing Pundits, Empty Phrases, and the Fine Art of Aftertiming"

The British horse racing pundit—a seasoned figure on our screens, armed with a thesaurus, an expression of thoughtful contemplation, and just enough jargon to make a horse sound like a mystical being. They wax poetic about “potential” and “promise” as if racehorses were fuelled by adjectives instead of oats. In an industry supposedly grounded in data, times, and odds, we’re instead showered with phrases that create an air of knowledge without offering much in the way of practical advice.

So what’s actually being measured here? Racing is, after all, about speed, form, pace, distance, ground, and bare-knuckle statistics that should help predict performance. But ITV, Racing TV, and Sky Sports Racing’s finest lean on softer science: “eye-catching” descriptions and poetic ambiguities. Rather than providing real race breakdowns or calculated odds, they prefer to dabble in the art of verbal mystique. You’re more likely to hear that a horse “ticks all the boxes” or is “bred for the big stage” than any actual, helpful insight.

“I Was Very Taken With” and Other Ways to Say Nothing at All

Take I was very taken with, a trusty standby for pundits who want to imply admiration without committing to specifics. But taken with what, exactly? The horse’s polished coat? The jaunty flick of its ears? You’d think these pundits had spent the pre-race watching for signs of charisma in the paddock.

Racing TV’s Megan Nicholls often delivers this line with her characteristic calm, hinting that she’s spotted something the rest of us couldn’t possibly see. But in reality, it’s little more than a charming hedge. Nicholls, a former jockey with firsthand racing knowledge, could easily talk about a horse’s gait, positioning, or recent speeds. Yet, time and again, we get the nebulous “I was taken with it.” Taken with a prancing trotter just doesn’t tell the punter much—and doesn’t need to. It gives the audience something that sounds credible without forcing her to place any real odds on the outcome.

“Going from Strength to Strength” But Still Not Exactly Winning

Then we have the classic going from strength to strength, another go-to phrase across the networks. On paper, this line implies a horse gaining confidence and form, building to an inevitable breakthrough. In reality, it’s often code for a middling horse making the tiniest of gains in fitness.

Let’s be honest: if a horse was truly “going from strength to strength,” we’d be seeing it in top-three finishes every race. Yet more often than not, these horses finish midfield at best. For the Racing TV team, this phrase adds a touch of promise where there may not be any, turning an also-ran into a quiet contender. It’s a verbal sprinkle of confidence without hard proof, creating a false crescendo of expectation that lacks substance.

And Then There’s the Aftertiming: “Knew It All Along”

There’s a special flair that racing pundits bring to the post-race wrap-up, known as “aftertiming”—the miraculous hindsight in which the pundit miraculously knew it would all go down exactly as it did, even if the pre-race commentary bore no resemblance to the result. Suddenly, that horse they didn’t mention gets a quick “well, he was clearly in with a chance” or “I did say he showed promise.” It’s a remarkable skill—one moment the horse is hardly on their radar, and the next, the pundit “knew it all along.”

Sky Sports Racing’s Simon Mapletoft, for instance, could give every horse in the race a fighting chance. He’s the master of the everyone’s a contender approach, making sure no horse feels left out. If a 50-1 outsider scrapes into fourth, Mapletoft is right there with a “showed potential from the off, that one.” If you’re wondering how he saw this potential, you’ll have to keep wondering, because it’s often only revealed in the post-race recap. Mapletoft’s method ensures he’s always half-right, creating the impression he’s cracked the race’s hidden code when really he’s just applied a broad brush to every runner in the field.

Have We Assessed Every Horse? Has Diligence Been Done?

Now, let’s consider the reality of the pundit’s task. Has every horse in the line-up really been assessed with a diligent eye? We rarely hear about the work behind these selections—what evidence has gone into each pick? Has someone looked beyond the surface-level form to spot a potential “rick” in the market? A “rick”—that rare instance of the market mispricing a horse—is exactly the kind of thing that could give punters a valuable edge. But these “insights” are suspiciously absent from the racing channels. After all anyone can name a horse with the minimum of research

It’s all well and good to say a horse is “one to watch,” but is it based on genuine analysis or just a scan of Racing Post’s Spotlight section? You’d think that with a bit more diligence, we might see some real effort to identify horses that are priced too high or too low. But Racing TV, ITV, and Sky Sports Racing rarely rock the boat, sticking instead to the script of safe, non-committal praise. There’s no challenge to the market, no calling out the oddities in the betting, just a steady stream of assurances with the kind of diligence that’s more poetic than practical. In fact betting has become a no go area for ITV, a necessary embarrassment.

The Real Dodging of Analysis: Descriptions Over Data

Now, Racing TV’s or Sky Sports team could very well deliver concrete assessments: sectional times, horse-by-horse price breakdowns, jockey stats. Descriptions don’t pay the bills, but numbers just might. A little transparency, perhaps on why a horse’s odds have fluctuated or how a particular jockey fares over certain distances, would be real food for the punter. Yet this brand of specificity is generally left on the back burner. Instead, Racing TV’s pundits lean on evocative language, pulling out lines like “a real improver” or “one to follow,” turning basic horse-picking into a sort of narrative art.

Mick Fitzgerald, for instance, rarely misses an opportunity to call a horse one to follow. Fitzgerald has the irrepressible optimism of a man convinced every horse is an undiscovered champion. If one of his picks finishes well, he’ll smile knowingly, as if he’s been holding an inside track all along. If it fails miserably, well, it still showed “promise.” Mick’s style is so infectiously upbeat that it’s easy to miss the fact that he rarely gives any sort of breakdown on the horse’s times or even comparisons to its peers. Instead, he’d rather talk of “potential” than potential pitfalls. For the racing romantic, it’s delightful; for the poor punter, less so.

ITV’s Theatre of Horse-Picking

ITV’s Ed Chamberlin brings a similar flair, always anchoring his commentary with a certain drama. Chamberlin, with his delivery that suggests he’s unveiling some ancient secret, is particularly partial to ticks all the boxes. A phrase that implies precision, it never seems to specify what’s actually being checked off. Instead, it creates a reassuring blanket of implied suitability—a horse that supposedly has everything in place to win, without any specific facts offered. If a horse “ticks all the boxes,” it should, by logic, be unbeatable; yet these box-ticking marvels frequently disappoint.

For ITV, ticks all the boxes becomes a linguistic shield, hinting at thorough research without actually risking a detailed opinion. It’s racing’s equivalent of saying “it looks right” while avoiding specifics. In truth, any horse on a betting slip ought to have a few qualities in its favour, but “ticks all the boxes” suggests that the pundits are pulling out all the stops for a pick that’s practically guaranteed—a guarantee that, of course, never materialises.

And Then There’s Anthony Dunkley: The Man Who’s Done some Homework

Amongst all this poetic ambiguity stands Anthony Dunkley, Racing TV’s rare voice of pragmatism. Dunkley has quietly distinguished himself by actually doing his homework rather than reading Racing Post’s Spotlight like a religious text. Where his colleagues might talk of a horse “going from strength to strength” with little follow-up, Dunkley might dig into a recent race time, the horse’s comfort on different grounds, or a jockey’s track record. He’s not there to simply lend an air of mystery to his picks; he’s willing to give a reason that might matter.

Dunkley isn’t going to avoid familiar racing phrases entirely, but his work often suggests he’s taken the time to analyse rather than rely on vague endorsements. And in an industry that prizes words like “promise” and “potential,” Dunkley’s analysis-driven approach can seem almost revolutionary. He may not have the flowery delivery of his Racing TV peers, but at least he’s able to back his recommendations with more than a hopeful phrase or two.

The Great British Punditry Illusion

Racing punditry, in truth, is less about analysis and more about creating an atmosphere—a comforting show that implies expertise while avoiding specifics. It’s a verbal performance that makes you feel there’s some ancient wisdom at work, while in reality, it’s a carousel of hopeful phrases that leave the door open to any result. There’s a strange irony here: if ITV Sky Sports and Racing TV’s pundits really wanted to help the punter, they’d offer up actual numbers. A bit of hard evidence here, a few odds comparisons there, and punters might feel like they had a genuine edge.

But what fun would that be? So next time ask yourself has the pundit given you some real insight?