​I am not someone who normally sits on the fence on any given subject. When arguing, which I dislike being goaded into, I have a habit of taking the dispute directly to the precipice. Fannying around is a waste of time and energy. Yet the decision not to change the date of the Grand National to accommodate the reopening of betting shops has left me understanding both sides of the debate.
To get me off the fence I need to know if the B.H.A. has gone to the government and reminded them that in running the Grand National two-days before the reopening of betting shops will deny the exchequer a good wad of betting tax, whatever that amount adds up to. I suspect it would be a far higher figure this year than years gone by simply because the public are in dire need of the buzz of anticipation that comes with backing a horse in the Grand National. If the B.H.A. haven’t thought it worthwhile reminding the government of its incompetence then that in itself is reason to side with those who wanted the Grand National run on the 17th rather than the 10th to take advantage of betting shops being open to the public. God knows the sport could do with a boost to its finances.

If the government, by the way, have not acted incompetently in this matter, then one can only conclude they have acted with malice aforethought towards the public. If betting shops are to open on the 12th, it would have been an act of kindness to both the beleaguered betting industry and the lockdown-fatigues general public to allow dispensation for them to open two-days ahead of the other beleaguered non-essential shops.
I can understand the difficulty in changing the date of the race from the 10th to the 17th. The proposal was, I believe, to bring forward the Scottish National by a week. But the Scottish National meeting, as it is with Aintree, is not a one-day meeting but three. Sponsors are involved and they might not all agree to the change. Owners may not be allowed back on a racecourse in time for Aintree but Scotland may decree they can attend race-meetings again in time for the Scottish National. A week is a long-time in politics, especially when a small victory might be easily won in the one-upmanship rivalry between the S.N.P. and Westminster by allowing owners back on Scottish racecourses ahead of their British counterparts.
Also, there must be financial consequences of changing the date. I suspect satellite links have to be booked well in advance and foreign t.v. companies would not be best pleased if their schedules were to be messed-up by a late change in date. And there must be a hundred-and-one other considerations to be taken into account.
As this will be the first year since I was but a child that I have not had a bet on the Grand National it should put me firmly on the side of those who campaigned for changing the date of the race. Although I have booked the weekend of the 10th as holiday from my gainful employment and talk of changing the date panicked me into the booking the following weekend off as a kind of safety-net. As you might surmise, the Grand National holds great importance to me. It is almost – no damn it – It is a reason for living, especially in such depressive times as we face at present. The scars from the ‘Grand National that never was’ have yet to fully heal. I doubt if they ever will.
Without crowds, this year’s race will not be the same. Some might think it a unique running of the race. But if this is what is termed the ‘New Normal’ you can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. The Grand National needs and deserves to be run in front of a packed house. Humans have a duty to pay homage to the heroic horses and jockeys that take part in the great race. The winner being led into the winners enclosure to the silence of an empty parking lot will be an injustice to the victorious. Imagine if racing and sporting history were to be the main story of the race: Tiger Roll being the first horse in Grand National history to win three in a row. Or if Rachael Blackmore or Bryony Frost were to win? History requires the applause of the multitude; not sterile echoes of racing plates on concrete or tarmac.
But at least a decision is made; the fannying around and short debate concluded before there were calls for a petition. And I remain squarely on the fence. I don’t know if it is the right decision or not. Not in the circumstances.

​I do not know Charles Byrnes and have no association with him. He might be an angel; he might be a terrible sinner. I have no way of knowing. I am aware, though, that he has a well-founded reputation for being a shrewd gambling man, with a mighty reputation for pulling off successful betting coups. A racehorse trainer who really knows the time of day, so I have read. It may not be a direct comparison but I feel a similarity here with the English racing authorities persecution of Captain Ryan Price back in the sixties and seventies.
Charles Byrnes has lost his livelihood for six-months for what the I.H.R.B. deemed negligence in leaving Viking Hoard unattended for a period of time in the stable yard at Tramore prior to a race in 2018, a stable yard, as with all Irish racecourses at the time, and still largely so, I believe, that did not possess C.C.T.V. cameras and as such veered toward complete laxity when it came to security. Byrnes and his son unloaded the unfortunate horse from the horsebox, put him in a stable, perhaps allocated to them by a Tramore member of staff, and left the horse unattended while they went to have lunch and to attend to other business associated with running the horse in the 2.35 race. 
In the accepted short time the horse was unattended, someone, the identity of which no one knows, entered Viking Hoard’s stable and administered an obscene amount of sedative, said to be 100-times over the international screening level. Byrnes, nor his son, were charged with administering the A.C.P., an offence far more damning than the charge of negligence that after appeal he was found guilty of. Neither father nor son were charged with the betting activity, conducted through a foreign betting account linked to Betfair. Indeed, the culprit in this end of the business was also never identified.
‘They got him’, Charles Byrnes that is, on what appears to me a catch-all regulation that suggests no horse once inside the racecourse stable-yard should be left unattended, a rule from my limited experience and imagination that must be violated by the staff of every racehorse trainer on a daily basis. Also, and thus far no report on this matter in the Racing Post has brought this into the light, is that there appears no other horse or human was in the stable-yard at Tramore at the time of the criminal act as apparently no one witnessed any unusual activity surrounding Viking Hoard’s stay at Tramore. Someone, I suggest, must have seen someone other than Charles Byrnes or his son enter that stable.
To my mind, if Byrnes had wanted to sedate Viking Hoard, he would not have done so while the horse was inside the Tramore stable-yard but in the horsebox, either on the way to the racecourse or in the parking area before unloading as to inject the horse, even in a stable complex devoid of security cameras, was to invite suspicion or to be caught in the act.
And what I find outrageous about the whole inquiry is that Byrnes was charged with negligence and not animal cruelty because if the I.H.R.B. thought him guilty of the doping crime but did not possess the evidence to convict him, with the dose of A.C.P. being so high it put the life of the horse and jockey at risk, the fate of the horse should have been given greater priority, when the betting aspect and leaving the horse unattended for a time less than an hour were the main points of debate. Still now, if the I.R.H.B. believe Byrnes guilty of administering the A.C.P., the Irish police should be asked to start a criminal investigation.
The crime of negligence is minor when compared to the animal cruelty issue and the possible risk of injury or something far worse to the jockey. The conclusion I draw from this sordid and drawn-out scar on Irish Racing, which is evidenced from Denis Egan’s quote ‘Verdict should serve as wake-up call to all trainers’, is that the I.R.H.B. was out to ‘get’ Byrnes, much in the way The English Jockey Club was out to get Ryan Price, and it didn’t matter what rule they found him guilty of, and used this affair to warn other trainers that they were not moribund but actively addressing all matters of integrity within racing. It is my opinion that the I.R.H.B.’s lax attitude to racecourse security was where the guilt truly lay, far more so than anything brought out in the inquiry that led to Charles Byrnes losing his licence to train.

​Sad so-and-so that I am, the publication of the Grand National weights is rather a highlight of my insubstantial existence, though not on a par with publication of the initial entries. That always gets my juices racing. These days there are few surprises from the handicapper, though that will not deter Michael and Eddie O’Leary giving out plenty on the ‘cruel and unfair mark he has imposed on Tiger Roll’. And for the next few weeks there will inevitably be a saga of ‘he won’t run, no way. Well, he might. He’s 60-40 likely to run. To something akin to their doing us a favour by giving him a shot at becoming the only horse to win three Grand Nationals in succession.’ Oh, they keep writing that Tiger Roll will be attempting, given he lines up, to emulate Red Rum’s achievement. He will not be. He’ll be surpassing Red Rum if he wins on April 10th. It took Red Rum fives attempts to win three Grand Nationals. Though Tiger Roll’s three will remain inferior to Red Rum’s three wins and two seconds, especially given the weights he carried. 12-st, 12-st, 11-10, 11-8.
Another thing: am I alone in thinking it madness that an Irish Grand National winner, Burrows Saint, has to qualify for the race as he hasn’t run in a chase this season, yet the novicey Battleoverdoyen does not? With the same applying to Anibale Fly, a horse who has jumped round in the Grand National on the last two occasions the race was run, finishing fourth and fifth.
To return to Tiger Roll: I have some sympathy with the O’Leary brothers. I appreciate the handicapper has to form the handicap to entice as many class horses to run; that said, can anyone put their hand on their heart and swear that Tiger Roll is within a pound in ability to Bristol de Mai and Santini?
Not that the O’Leary boys can claim to have the worst handicapped horse in the race as that must fall to Easysland who must be a Gold Cup horse to be given 11st 10lbs, the same as Bristol De Mai and Santini.
If I could dream a winner to become reality it would be Vieux Lion Rouge, the horse that has jumped more Aintree fences than any horse in the history of the Grand National. He won’t win, of course. He is a stayer that just doesn’t stay far enough. But I hope he jumps round again.
To my mind the most leniently handicapped horse and my initial selection for the race is Secret Reprieve. 10st 1 is a featherweight for a horse with so much potential and though he’ll need soft underfoot conditions, I can’t see him being far away at the winning post. Right trainer, right jockey, right owners, a combination that deserve a Grand National winner.
An Irish horse that has taken my eye recently is Minella Times. Again, 10st 3 is no weight for a horse that seems to be coming to himself. Milan Native is another Irish trained horse that attracts me as a possible Aintree type.
It is said that the best Grand National trial is the Cheltenham Gold Cup. I disagree. The best trial for Aintree is the Welsh National and this year’s race will, I believe, provide the winner. Yet the best performance in the race this year was definitely the third-place finish by Yala Enki, giving the winner 25lbs. Trouble is I can’t see him jumping round. Not because he fell on his head at the first in the Becher Chase but simply because when he gets a fence wrong, as at Taunton recently, he doesn’t do it by halves. I would have liked him to a few pounds less than 11st 3lbs, not that weight concerns me with him, but if he takes to the place, he will still be galloping jumping the last. And that is all you can hope for if he is carrying your ten-quid each-way, the only way to back him. It would be sheer madness to back him to win.
Mind you, anything I write here can be forgotten about if Santini runs. If there is such a beast as an Aintree horse, it is Santini. If he runs, he wins. Wouldn’t be able to see past him.
But as of February 17th, my three against the field would be: Secret Reprieve, Minella Times and Milan Native. My greatest hope, though, is that there will be spectators, if only 50% of full attendance. In reality, the best we can expect is that owners will be allowed to attend. Though if I were in charge of such decisions, I would put it to government that it might make for a useful experiment to have an attendance of 20,000, or some such number, to see what transmission occurs during the following weeks. If you are to test and track, why not follow those who attend Aintree. It would be a mark to the public that the government is following the science. Which it isn’t, by the way.

​Nowadays, Ascot is primarily associated with royalty, except on Derby Day when Epsom is graced by Her Majesty’s presence. Yet during the formative years of the sport, extending into the previous century, Newmarket was the playground of royalty, especially our Kings.
Pre the Merry Monarch, the 2nd King Charles, Newmarket, in association with the rest of the country, had suffered under the reign of the niggardly, warts and all, Cromwell, and rural entertainments such as cock-fighting, bull-baiting and horse racing were banned, for fear that large gatherings of people might be the first steps toward a royalist uprising. Shades of 2021, wouldn’t you say?
It is perhaps little known that misery-guts Cromwell, though he didn’t know it, was responsible in a small way in raising the first shoots of horse racing’s recovery from his prohibition of the sport. The nucleus of his fine stable of horses became the Royal Stud, with the best of them acquired by Charles for his own service, with others distributed throughout the land, improving the quality of horses from north to south.
Charles, ‘the known enemy of Virginity and Chastity’, made no haste toward Newmarket, it has to be said. It took him six-years to make the journey and when he arrived, he took it upon himself to have a good moan about the place. Though the royal stables were in good order, the ravages of Cromwell’s neglect meant the Palace was in disrepair, allowing him no royal accommodation. He found the heath ploughed, making it unsuitable for hawking and there were no hounds for hunting. A poor state of affairs, you will have to agree.
After trying out the homes of the local gentry, and doubtless finding them inadequate, Charles bought, though never paid for, Audley End and finally he could enjoy Newmarket and with his wife elsewhere, the debauchery he was famous for could begin. Enter Louise de Querouaille, Nell Gwynn, Moll Knight, etc. It is possible Charles had his own view on what constituted the Royal Stud.
Although in 1665 he established the Newmarket Town Plate and later made himself a supreme judge and Steward of the Jockey Club, I don’t think horse racing can be fairly named as one of Charles’ most needful of pastimes.
William 2nd and Mary did embrace Newmarket and horse racing. He threw money at the rebuilding of the Palace and all the wild daffodils growing in the vicinity of the town can be put down to him. When he visited Newmarket, he ensured that everyone knew about it. He arrived in pomp, in a coach and six, followed by every equipage imaginable conveying the finest gentleman and ladies London could spare. And he liked a bet. And nothing mingy, either. He once staked 2,000 guineas on a match race between himself and the Duke of Somerset. His favourite victory it is said was when his Stiff Dick got one over on the previously invincible Careless, owned by the Marquess of Wharton. I suspect losing to the reigning monarch did more for your long-term prospects than defeating him.
Royal cads and Newmarket have made historically good bedfellows. George, Prince Regent, lived his regal life in mimicry of Charles, with, as it is with the youthful, enough of anything never being adequate. He gambled lucklessly, mixed with the Barrymores, ‘Hellgate’, ‘Cripplegate’, ‘Newgate’ and their sister ‘Billingsgate’, congenial company but not the sort future kings should associate with. And had affairs, as any young bachelor king is expected to do.
He did, though, have as many virtues as vices, one of which was the royal stable, having as many as twenty-five in training and was in the habit of bidding for any horse that took his fancy. In four-years he won nearly 200 races, one of which was the 1788 Derby with Sir Thomas. Then from 1800-1807 another 107 winners came his way. In fact, in twenty-years he won 313 races.
Though Queen Victoria maintained a stud at Hampton Court and attended Royal Ascot, she did have much interest in horse racing and did not visit Newmarket.
The Prince of Wales, to become Edward 7th, made good his mother’s lack of interest in the sport by taking it to his heart, though his enviable success as a breeder/owner was down to his purchase of the mare Perdita who on the advice of his trainer John Porter he paid over 1,000 guineas for. She became known as ‘the gold mine’. She bred his Majesty, Florizel, Persimmon and Diamond Jubilee. The first named won many races including the Goodwood, Manchester and Jockey Club Cups, the second-named won the Derby, Eclipse, St.Leger and Ascot Gold Cup, the third-named usurped his full-brothers by winning the Triple Crown and the Eclipse.
John Porter trained not in Newmarket but in Hampshire and due to the inaccessibility of his stables, the Prince of Wales moved his horses to Egerton House in Newmarket, the home of Richard Marsh. His horses remained in Newmarket for the rest of his life. Upon his death the royal racehorses were bequeathed to King George V.
All of the bare facts above I have purloined from R. C. Lyle’s fabulous book ‘Royal Newmarket’, with illustrations by none other than Lionel Edwards, R.I. Published in 1945, price 35-shillings, I expect a copy in good condition to be valued far above the £20 I paid for my more ragged edition.

​Let me begin by saying that I believe there are far too many minor Group races on the flat in this country and if I had my way over fifty-per-cent of them would become limited handicaps. Listed and Group 3’s exist solely to ensure easy black type for the owners of fillies and mares to increase their breeding value and appeal to bidders at auction. They do nothing for the competitiveness of day-to-day racing.
Ireland, too, has too many soft Group and Graded races. But that is Ireland’s problem and one that in time they will sort out. In Ireland, it seems to me, as with all matters to do with racing, they have a surplus of time, so much they do not know what to do with it.
According to Lee Mottershead and others, horse racing in this country is ‘broken’. I disagree, at least when it comes to National Hunt. 
I contend that the situation the Racing Post addressed was brought into being by the inception of one race, the Betfair Chase at Haydock. This race was unnecessary at its inception and has remained a thorn in the pre-Christmas race programme every since. In fact, I surmise, that if it wasn’t for Kauto Star the race may well have sunk without trace very early on in its existence. 
The Betfair is run most years in bog-like conditions; the Irish, and Willie Mullins in particular, ignore the race, as does Nicky Henderson, and because of its proximity to the Ladbroke Trophy it is taking a toll on the quality of runners in which is the second-most important staying handicap chase of the season. To my mind, the Betfair or Lancashire Chase as it is registered but not known as, would serve the sport better if it was restricted to the previous season’s novices, allowing trainers a convenient path toward the King George at Christmas for the less experienced chaser.
To my way of thinking, the first half of the season should culminate over the Christmas period, with most of, British trained chasers, at least, clashing in the King George. And as much as I believe Sandown Park is one of the best racecourses in the world, deserving of top-quality racing at every meeting, at present it is in dire need of a good drainage system, a fact that undermines every major jump race it stages. If I had my way I would either move the Tingle Creek to Kempton, with the Desert Orchid going in the opposite direction or the Grade 1 status applied to Kempton’s Desert Orchid, with the Tingle Creek becoming a valuable prep race for Boxing Day. It is not the races that are the problem but the order in which they are run.
Mares hurdles and chases are highly important to the breeding side of National Hunt and in the main in this country, though not so much in Ireland, these races are reasonably competitive. But there should be disincentives for connections to continue running mares in these races at the expense of the steeplechasing and hurdle classic and semi-classic races. For instance, the mares hurdle at the Cheltenham Festival is not titled as a Champion Hurdle for mares and as such there should be a ratings cap in the conditions of the race, which would at least make it more competitive. I realise Honeysuckle is now to be aimed at the Champion Hurdle but it is ridiculous and unproductive for the sport for her to be allowed to run in much lesser race at the Festival when she is favourite for the Champion Hurdle or any mare of a similar calibre. Also, as things stand at the moment, the top hurdler in the country, Epatante, can receive 7lbs from lesser horses in every hurdle race she runs in. This cannot be right. As the Champion hurdler she should lose the right to the mares allowance; in deed any mare that reaches a rating similar to Epatante and Honeysuckle’s present mark should automatically lose the right to the mare’s allowance.
The race programme post-Christmas is, whether we like it or not, all about the route to Cheltenham. Every measure should be taken to encourage Nicky Henderson, for example, to campaign his top horses more vigorously up to the New Year, with enough prep races to have the top horses at their prime for the middle of March, which I believe there are. 
I have complained for years that we cannot without any surety claim that today’s hurdlers and chasers are as good as those that went before them in the sixties, seventies and early eighties, because those horses ran quite regularly in handicaps whereas at present Messres Henderson, Nicholls, Mullins etc would have a fainting fit if they were forced to run their top Cheltenham horses in any sort of handicap. Yet certain races deserve better quality runners, the Ladbroke Trophy and the Betfair Hurdle in particular. If Persian War could run in and win a Schweppes (now the Betfair) and then go to Cheltenham and win the Champion Hurdle why can’t Epatante, Buveur D’air or any of the contenders for the Champion Hurdle? The thoroughbred hasn’t changed that much in the past thirty-years has it? Or perhaps it is the trainers who have changed? Or the vanity of owners?
This is a subject a knowledgeable scribe could write a small book about. It is a subject that a hundred knowledgeable scribes could write a book about without any one of them agreeing with anyone else. But I will finish my two-pennies worth with this, and it is a fact the Racing Post did not mention: after the Cheltenham Festival there are big prizes to be won at Aintree and Punchestown, with the Fairyhouse Irish Grand National meeting and Sandown’s old Whitbread meeting also to be considered. In deed most of the big prizes in National Hunt are competed for in the final 3-months of the season; it is why Mullins and Henderson in particular do not get over-excited in October, November and December and, with the exception of the Dublin Racing Festival, they are not too invigorated by January and February either.

​Of course, Honeysuckle should be targeted at the Champion Hurdle, irrespective of how she performs at Leopardstown on Saturday. She is unbeaten, is already a winner at the Cheltenham Festival and seemingly has no ground preference. Although I believe the innovation from a 3-day Festival to 4-days – I would actually like a 5th-day tagged on, but not a Festival day – to be correct, it has to be said it is now too easy for connections to duck the challenge of the major races to run in the lesser Festival races. And yes, there are lesser races at the Festival. 
The Mares Hurdle in particular devalues the Festival, even though the concept for encouraging an increase in mares in training is wholly admirable. Horses with the sort of ratings Honeysuckle and Benie Des Dieux have achieved should not be eligible for the Mares Hurdle, encouraging their connections to go for either the Champion or Stayers Hurdle. The Mares race is not titled the Champion Mares Hurdle and if there were a ratings cap it would in many years be a more competitive race.

Now, Mr.Henderson of Seven Barrows. I seem always at present to be having a pop at him. I must be becoming arrogant and too full of myself. If he were to be painted as a mountain, I would be an indistinct figure at the foot. He knows more about training racehorses than I accumulatively know about every subject lodged in my imagination. But to everyone, including the great man himself, Santini is everything you would look for in horse for a modern-day Grand National and as last season proved there might not be ‘another year’. Look, if Santini were to win this season’s Gold Cup, and on last year’s form that would is perfectly feasible, he would be top weight for the Grand National for the next two runnings of the race. He doubtless will be this year. But he’ll not be conceding as much weight this time around and to be honest I doubt if this year’s race will be overly competitive. This year, I suspect, he’ll have to give Bristol de Mai a single pound, in the future, especially if he wins the Gold Cup, that might be seven. Go for the Grand National this season, is my take on it. But then what do I know?

I don’t have a clue how these things work but given the agreed incompetence of the IHRB, shouldn’t those whose livelihoods are dependent on their decisions and adjudications get together to take a vote of no confidence in them?

This is only a thought and the weather may step in and prove moot the debate but wouldn’t it have been, given Wetherby have no expectations of the chase course being fit for purpose on Saturday and Sandown are in the same position with their hurdles course, that the Contenders Hurdle was given to Wetherby and the Towton Novices Chase rerouted to Sandown. A simple solution that for all I know was not so simple to implement. 

Finally: the phrase ‘Trying to be the Best Boy in Class’ keeps coming to mind when witnessing arbitrary decisions made by the racing authorities that have very little sense to them. In Ireland, a country I have heard described as Pravda-Central at the moment, allow amateurs to carry on riding, yet in Britain the B.H.A. are not allowing them to ride. I am pretty sure these same men and women are mixing with professional jockeys, trainers and stable staff at home. I would be pretty sure they are shuttling between professional stables and the point-to-point stables where their pointers are housed. In the same way people in the wider world are shuttling between their places of work, the supermarket and the town park and local leisure amenities. Yet amateur jockeys cannot attend and ride at racecourses that are deemed safe from the dreaded kung-flu.

​If I try to concentrate on an idea, to flesh out the vagaries of the concept into something substantial, with the veneer of many weeks of careful study attached to it, pretty much a 100% of the time my brain will fail me. Then, with an eruption of many Sheldon Cooper bazzingas, just to prove that it has not gone to mush, my brain will present, fully-formed, an idea brimming with initiative and the question mark of why no one else has ever thought-of it before.
This is such an event, such an idea.
Although being a traditionalist I was not at first keen on the idea of the Dublin Racing Festival and yet not for the first time I have been proved wrong. I didn’t like the idea of cherry-picking races from other racecourses and shoehorning them into one meeting to produce a spectacular show that could bottom so many horses that it weakened the Cheltenham Festival. In fact, so warmed by the resulting big weekend and excited from the soles of my feet upwards that I.T.V. are televising the meeting for the first time, I propose enlarging the Dublin Racing Festival by staging on the same weekend a two-day Cheltenham Trials Day.
Yes, there is the risk of putting too many eggs in two Irish Sea separated baskets, what with the February weather and the worrying inability of the Cheltenham drainage system to cope with the type of monsoon weather that when first installed dried out the course to the effect that firm occasionally featured in the going description.
But think about it for a moment. One of the tantalising aspects of the Cheltenham Festival is the rivalry between the Irish and the home team. So why not stage, on the same dates in the calendar, a ‘trials weekend’ – the Dublin Racing Festival is in effect trials for the Cheltenham Festival – at both Leopardstown and Cheltenham. The same races at each course, Triumph Hurdle trial at Leopardstown, for instance, followed fifteen-minutes later by a Triumph Hurdle trial at Cheltenham. Champion Hurdle trial at Leopardstown followed fifteen-minutes later by a Champion Hurdle trial at Cheltenham. Gold Cup, Arkle and Champion 2-mile trial at Leopardstown followed fifteen-minutes later by the same trial at Cheltenham. And so on.
Of course, it would need cooperation and coordination between the two courses and by the racing authorities of both countries and for it to succeed as imagined it would require the weather in the two countries to synchronise in perfect harmony. And if the weather did let us down either in Ireland or in the Cotswolds, the disappointment would be as gut-wrenching as Crisp getting done inches before the winning post by Red Rum after so magnificently destroying the Aintree fences image as being horse-withering banks of solid oak – but such idea are what dreams are made of, right?
And if Ireland can finance a weekend of wall-to-wall Grade 1’s, why can’t the same be achieved here? 
This idea would shine a bright light on what is usually the dullest time in the British racing calendar and would illuminate what awaits us during the middle of the following month, the brightest light in the British racing calendar. As with Ireland, we are having to survive as wretched a time as any of us can remember for our sport. I suspect if all these government restrictions continue for many more months, the sport here and in Ireland will be holding on for dear life by its boot straps.
This time next year we simply have to have something bright and beautiful in place to help kick-start the recovery towards a sustainable future. A Dublin Racing Festival staged on the same two days as a Cheltenham Trials Festival is that ‘something bright and beautiful’. I move that this proposal be put to the house. Or the B.H.A..

​I have no doubt that trainers are both pleased and grateful when at times of wintry weather, the B.H.A., at short notice, schedule what is called ‘Jumpers Bumpers’ at Lingfield and Newcastle. Whether or not such races should or could be included as extra races on normal schedules meetings throughout the winter, either on an all-weather fixture or a jumps card, is food for thought. Certainly these ‘Jumpers Bumpers’ allow trainers to get a good, proper piece of work into a horse in need of tuning-up for a race in the coming weeks.
My thought on this is thus: if clerks of the courses had to supply the B.H.A. on a daily basis on whether their racecourse was fit to race, albeit on heavy ground, instead of sanctioning ‘Jumpers Bumpers’, there being at the moment no alternative, an abandoned meeting could be moved to a racecourse that is in a raceable condition. As things stand, with government restrictions, with all the relevant protocols in place and with neither crowds nor bookmakers allowed on site, it should be a comparatively easy exercise to transfer a meeting to the nearest raceable racecourse. Less easy, I admit, when, or if, we get back to life as we once knew it, but with a can-do attitude it should be manageable.
Also, while on the subject of abandoned meetings; if Ireland, even when life was normal and crowds and bookmakers were allowed on site, can postpone for a few days rather than abandon, why can it not be so with the B.H.A.? Why abandon ‘Trails Day’ at Cheltenham, for instance, rather than postpone until this weekend. Yes, this year, it clashes with the Dublin Racing Festival and Sandown, if Cheltenham raced on the Saturday, but it is unlikely to happen many times in a decade or three. Although the B.H.A. have proved themselves more flexible than their predecessors, the Jockey Club, they remain unreceptive to my criticism that they rely on being reactive rather than proactive. All the major meetings, flat and N.H., should have rescheduled dates published alongside the set date in the calendar so that owners, trainers, jockeys etc, know from before the time of abandonment whether to look for alternative races or wait until the meeting’s reserve date. It is all about being on the front foot, in my opinion.

My other thought on racecourses is this: racecourses should be neighbour-friendly, especially as there are so few proper ‘country racecourses’ remaining, with so many of our top racecourses now surrounded on all sides by urbanisation. 
With the proviso that racecourses erect observation towers manned by good marksmen so they can fire warning shots over the heads of people who trespass on to the hallowed ground of the racecourse proper, I believe racecourse executives and staff should welcome their neighbours to walk their dogs (dog-mess bins must be provided), to jog and run, with swings and roundabout and such activities for smaller children to enjoy.
But why stop there? Why not skate-parks for the hoodie-type child and teenager or adventure playground. Or B.M.X. track. Or gardens. Or tennis courts. Or hang the expense, a racecourse-themed adventure park, in the style, but not of the size, of Alton Towers. If the Epsom Derby can be run round the outside of ‘all-the-fun-of-the-fair’, why not a few rollercoasters and flume-rides? Not everyone plays or has an interest in golf.
If Mohammed Redcar or Joe Fontwell cannot go to the mountain, the mountain must be given incentives to come to them.
What the past tragic 10-months should have taught us is that racecourses need to earn revenue outside of race-days. I realise that racecourses have engaged with the concept of 365-days a year activity and that conferences, wedding receptions and such do’s, sit well with their existing infrastructure. Yet is the image of the racecourse as a place for nobs and the well-heeled altered by such activities? In my, yes, naïve, eyes, racecourses should not be off-limits to the general public and, yes, I accept there is an inherent risk of damage to the racecourse without some form of supervision, but if racecourses were regarded as parks for entertainment, wouldn’t the sport be on the road to altering its image into something more public-friendly?
I am not advocating every racecourse take this route. Cartmel, for instance, is enchanting as it is, enclosed as it is in a village setting, with a backdrop of a priory and Cumbrian gorgeous countryside. I remember at York this season and again at Musselburgh in the New Year, with the public standing on rights of way or the pavement, watching the racing as if looking upon something ordinarily out-of-bounds to them. To towns and cities, racecourses provide a green lung, an oxygen-rich breadth of countryside, on non-race-days an oasis of tranquillity. 
I desperately want every racecourse in this country to be prospering long after I have curled-up my toes and these past long ten-months have shown me a glimpse of what might be a terrible future-to-be.