​You quite often learn of someone who has risen to become chairman of a big, sometimes global, company after starting out on the bottom rung of the ladder, on the shop-floor or as the office gopher. Someone who has experienced a company at every level before becoming the head man or woman can bring a different perspective to decision making than the person head-hunted from a rival company, someone whose life and work experience is limited to university and boardroom. It is not the same within racing, of course, with the B.H.A. an exclusive club with little or no member with hands-on experience of the industry the authority governs.
A teenager starting on the ground-floor of the racing industry, as a stable-hand or groom as they are now referred to, can expect with hard-work and good fortune to rise in rank to travelling head-groom or even head-groom. A few will become assistant trainers, while an even more fortunate few might become trainers in their own right. The really talented, of course, if it is their aim in life, will become successful or unsuccessful jockeys. That, though, is as far as the jobs-ladder in the racing industry will take them.
I lie, of course, to a degree. If their face fits and they have achieved a certain level of achievement as jockeys’, positions at racecourses can be open to people, Clerks of the Courses, stipendiary stewards, starters, that sort of thing.
The path to the higher echelons of the industry are, though, firmly closed. To reach the heady heights of head honcho of racing what is required is not hands-on experience of the horse and the sport but knowing the people who can lever you into the position of ultimate power. Rather like the qualifications for being an Archbishop does not on paper require a belief in God, to become head of the British Racing Authority all that is required is a passing interest in the sport. Soon, though, I suspect, a firm requirement will be an Australian passport.
Until John Francome kicked up a fuss about it, stewards used to refer to jockeys by their surname, as if in their minds they were addressing servants. In turn Francome referred to stewards as ‘Cabbage-Patch Dolls’. Mr.Francome won the argument. Unfortunately, we seem to be regressing to those long-ago days of The Jockey Club when that exclusive institution were racing’s overlords. Reading what Ruby Walsh thought of the tone used by the stewards and the starter at The Festival at the jockeys’ briefings, ‘as if they were talking to children’, very soon Ruby can expect to be summoned by his surname when the stewards want a word with him.
There is, it seems, a culture of ‘them and us’ developing between authority and the working-class majority which is symptomatic of a governing body that has lost the plot and have adopted the defensive attitude of ‘it’s my ball and I can do what I like’.
I always regret when someone in racing with vast experience of the sport is allowed to retire without anyone in authority thinking it might benefit the sport if his or her experience was put to good use as an advisor or even in some sort of executive board member capacity. Henrietta Knight, for instance. A woman of great experience of horses, racing, other equine activities, jockeys, trainers, owners, and connected to an influential racing family, yet when she retired no one seemed to think she might remain as asset to the sport, if only in an advisory role.
Of course, the sport must be financially administered by people with the experience in such matters but there should be avenues for real racing people that might lead to their experience being relied upon at board level. The cock-ups that have come from B.H.A. board members over the past twelve months, even if driven by a sincere desire to protect the sport from the ignorant minority at Westminster and beyond, would not have happened if people with hands-on racing experience were in position to make the right calls at the right time. I cannot imagine Henrietta Knight suggesting that arm-waving represents cruel coercion or that ‘horses should race of their own free-will’, or horses should only race with four shoes or that Declan Lavery was guilty of inappropriate riding.
It should be remembered that this is a flesh and blood industry. On a day-to-day basis, good, honest, dedicated professionals, work alongside and strive to do all they can to work in harmony with what is probably the most handsome animal on the planet. Neither Nick Rust nor anyone whose whole working life has involved wearing crisp suits and a collar and tie can make rules and regulation to improve the sport and its reputation without having a working knowledge of the day-to-lives of the horse and the people who dedicate their lives to its care and fitness. At the very least the B.H.A. should have people of the calibre of Henrietta Knight in advisory positions and there should be a procedure that before any procedure or rule change is adopted it should be discussed, perhaps debated, with the people it most concerns.
 
 

​I may be wrong, I am sometimes, but what I think is happening since the Cheltenham Festival came to a close is that the powers-that-be are encouraging or pressurising horse racings non-hands-on ‘stakeholders’ to rally behind the B.H.A.’s views on horse welfare and to criticize the stance of trainers, jockeys, retired trainers and retired jockeys, on the same issue. It may be controversial to say so but I do not believe anything the B.H.A. instigated at Cheltenham was worth a heap of beans to the welfare of horses. It was, at best, window dressing and worst an insult to the intelligence and professionalism of trainers both on these shores and Ireland. The crusade the B.H.A. are involved with at present, as worthy as it is noble, is to prevent horses being seriously injured or killed in full view of public scrutiny. As sad as it is to say, as much as everyone in the sport would want it otherwise, there is nothing anyone can do to stop horses being fatally injured in pursuit of our sport, neither over jumps nor on the flat. Such fatalities cannot be prevented whether the horses in question are involved in show-jumping, dressage, grazing in a field, on stud farms, foaling, hacking down a road or while at rest in their stables. Nil per cent fatalities is an impossible target. Life just isn’t like that.
What is totally wrong with the B.H.A.’s approach to horse welfare is that they are the ones driving the issue. They have cocked-up so often during the past twelve months that it is asking too much of racing professionals to fall into rank behind their leadership. What is required, in this the most important issue of racing’s present and future, is a united front and to achieve the aim of everyone singing from the same hymn-sheet is to consult, talk, negotiate, listen, respect and exchange knowledge. Jaw-jaw, as Churchill once said, not war-war, which seems the B.H.A.’s favourite method of governance. To have the public, and the politicians, apparently, believing in our commitment to better horse welfare, our initiatives must be far more representative of our sport than the window dressing indulged in thus far by the B.H.A..
I will now put forward two practical suggestions that if implemented will impress on anyone with an open mind that as a sport we are very much horse welfare orientated.
Firstly, the reintroduction of a ‘distance judge’, as was once the situation at Aintree, where a judge sits in an appropriate place in the home straight and flags down any horses that are more than an agreed distance behind the horse at the head of the race or that has reached the winning post. The discrepancy between ‘riding to achieve the best possible finishing position’, the rights of punters to collect on each-way bets and horse welfare will be alleviated if which ever horse is 2nd, 3rd or 4th at the point the ‘distance judge’ signals the end of the race will be placed in those positions and not deemed to have ‘pulled-up’.
Secondly, and this will involve cost and perhaps a leap of faith, though I am sure the B.H.A. will listen to any idea that helps them defeat the anti-racing lobby within the Labour Party.
Where racing in the past has always lagged behind when it comes to horse welfare – the official line was always ‘it’s none of our business what owners decide to do with horses no longer deemed fit for racing’ – is the horse once it leaves the stables of a licensed trainer. The rehabilitation of horses has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, with the thoroughbred now seen as an asset in many other strands of equestrianism. The ex-racehorse is best suited to the hunting field, of course, though there lies the minefield that is the killing of foxes and deer. My suggestion is that Drag Hunts are set-up by the B.H.A. and other ‘stakeholder’ groups to have in place a suitable domain for ex-racehorses.
These Drag Hunts will employ local people and because there would be no hounds or killing of other animals would in time achieve a following by people pleased to see old favourites happy in their retirement. Trainers could use meets to give a ‘day out’ to a horse in need of a change of scenery or to help educate younger horses. Subscriptions would off-set costs, with the added bonus of some kind of ‘point-to-point’ event at the end of the season. These racehorse Drag Hunts would not be of the cosmetic kind so far favoured by the B.H.A. but a hands-on pro-active horse-racing initiative, a left-field idea to improve the lives of retired racehorses.
We cannot allow either Westminster or sadly the B.H.A. to drive this issue. If trainers, jockeys and owners are 100% committed to horse welfare they must pitch ideas on how to go forward on this issue. I have long now proclaimed that the future of our sport is feminine – I too often use the rather crude expression ‘I have seen the future and it has no testicles’ – simply because females are more open to expressing tenderness and love of their horses. As much as I admire Ruby Walsh’s frank and honest opinions, he would not be the best person nowadays to be racing’s spokesperson. We no longer live in the time when Men were Men, tears were a sign of weakness and the death of an animal an event of no consequence.
 

​When it comes to horse racing, I tend naturally to veer toward traditionalism, if inconsistently at times. I champion radical ideas of my own invention when I believe change to be of benefit to the sport and I remain convinced, to give such an example, that a 40-runner Lincoln Handicap started from a barrier would invest the start of the flat season with an oomph that is badly required and elevate the Lincoln from the ordinary to the extraordinary.
Why the National Hunt Chase held such prestige is unknown to me. It was, and remained until comparatively recently, a maiden chase, and in the early years of the Gold Cup it had precedence when it came to rescheduling the meeting if bad weather caused postponements. In some years the Gold Cup was abandoned altogether while the National Hunt Chase was staged at a later date. Up to the mid- thirties only the Grand National was of greater value and importance to the jumping fraternity.
Although I value tradition and am saddened and maddened by the constant change in race titles due to the hostage-taking of sponsors with no concept of sporting heritage and historical record, I can bend with the wind as well as anyone. On some issues, though, I sternly resist the wind. For example: if I or anyone were to set-out to write a history of what was the Hennessey but is now the Ladbroke Trophy, what would the book be titled. A history of the Cheltenham Gold Cup would have that as its title. The same with the Grand National. But a book on the Hennessey/Ladbroke Trophy would have to be called ‘That 3-mile 2-furlong Handicap Chase run at Newbury in late November or Occasionally Early December’. The race may be ‘registered’, whatever that means, as The Newbury Steeplechase or something similar but no one would recognise it as such.
But to return to the fate of the National Hunt Chase. The sight, though, of four, or was it five, screens erected around Cheltenham after this year’s renewal of the National Hunt Chase, even if only one horse perished, and the subsequent punishments metered out to three jockeys, although I hope common-sense prevails and one is overturned, has removed my support from the diehard traditionalists who would want the race to remain unchanged, a race for amateurs, the amateur riders Grand National, as it was once referred to, I believe.
Changing the distance or the conditions of the race, in this age of professionalism and close public scrutiny, are, in my opinion, only solutions of the sticking plaster order. As I said, for the majority of its longevity the National Hunt Chase was a race for maidens, so it’s not like traditionalists are protecting the race in its original form. To my way of thinking, and killing two birds with one stone as far as I am concerned, I would elevate the race to championship status.
The heartland of steeplechasing is the long-distance chase. From the Grand National to the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and all the regional Nationals here and in Ireland, any race with the word ‘National’ in its title is a race of distinction and the main race of the day. Yet there is no championship race for the long-distance chaser, as there was not for a long time in chasing’s history no 2-mile championship race.
The Cheltenham Festival is above all else a race meeting that defines champions. It is a race meeting that demands quality, the best horses over a variety of distance and obstacle. The most ardent of its supporters cannot claim the National Hunt Chase is a bringer of high quality to the meeting. Its only real claim is that it allows the top amateur riders a moment in the spotlight, yet they already have two other opportunities at the meeting to display their riding skills. It could be argued that if Cheltenham is jumping’s equivalent to the Olympics, an analogy I detest as the two events have no similarities, the pinnacle of our racing year, it might be thought absurd to have any race restricted to amateurs.
The National Hunt Chase should be restricted to professional riders and be retitled the National Hunt 4-mile Champion Chase, even if it is run over 3-miles, 7-furlongs and a few yards more.
If not next season but the season after, it would be a logical race for the likes of Native River, Anibale Fly, Elegant Escape or even Tiger Roll. And if Cheltenham and Aintree could be kept 4-weeks apart it would also be a valuable prep race for aspiring Grand National horses.
As with the other championship races at Cheltenham, the 4-mile Champion Chase would have good renewals and poorer renewals, so any argument along the lines of ‘what would have run in it this year’ is not valid. Only the decades will have any say on determining whether it adds or distracts from the Festival.

​How the Frosts cope with the adulation heaped upon their daughter is beyond my imagination. I am not suggesting she is undeserving of the universal praise, only that her parents know her, whereas her admirers only know of her. Her parents can, no doubt, recount stories of disobedience and perhaps even insolence, of tears and tantrums and interrogation in the wake of nights out with boyfriends who in the eyes of loving parents rarely come up to scratch.
As I have said before, Bryony Frost is the best publicity this sport has ever had. We must neither waste her talent as a jockey, which must be the first consideration, nor her ability to transmit to her audience her love of horses and of the sport she already dominates. We must not put her on a pedestal. She maybe a star but she is also human. We must not take advantage of her.
It would be wrong to expect her to carry the weight of the sport’s image on her own. Yes, if the B.H.B. could bottle her enthusiasm and passion it would have a new funding stream. But that is not possible. What is possible, though, is that the sport’s participants, jockeys, trainers, stewards, racing’s administrators, etc, take a leaf from her book and begin the process of extenuating the positives our sport has to offer. Bryony is a young woman embarking on a dangerous and difficult career-path. She may be a pathfinder for professional female jockeys. She may be the darling of racegoers and even punters. She may be a breaker of glass ceilings. But most of all she is a jockey and a human being and for all its good intentions the stakeholders of this sport must give her space to pursue her career and to live her young life.
Bryony cannot correct the trajectory of our sport, nor should we expect her to. In today’s Racing Post, David Jennings suggested that the stars of our sport are the jockeys and that if they were media trained the moment they receive their jockeys’ licence the sport would be better served. He might be correct in his opinion. But he does not listen to Bryony, to her narrative. The horses are the stars. He says horses cannot talk. But they can. Frodon and Altior spoke to their public last week and racegoers lapped up their message. Surprisingly, for a change, the B.H.B. have something right. The sport has to put the horse first in all matters. Jockeys must talk about their mounts, not themselves.
I recently read about a trainer in the late twenties who was in the habit of whistling to his approaching horses on the gallops, which he said encouraged them to go faster. At the races he would stand at the winning post whistling as loud as he could in the believe that his horses would try that bit harder as the winning post neared. The story made headlines in the newspapers and encouraged editors to tell their correspondents to come up with similar stories, taking racing from sport to the general interest pages of the newspapers. Perhaps horse racing columnists and writers should seek out interesting racing related stories and submit them to the daily and regional newspapers, to take the sport from the back to the inside pages.
Although it is perfectly understandable, he had achieved his greatest ambition, after all, but on pulling up Paul Townsend talked about himself, Willie Mullins and the owners of Al Boum Photo, without hardly mentioning the horse itself. This was, of course, in stark contrast to Bryony Frost’s post-race interview. (Not that it was an interview in the common sense of the word as all Oli Bell did was switch her on and away she bubbled like a fountain of passion and exuberance.)
Yes, Bryony is a joy. But we must allow her to rest in the shadows. If her injury scare of yesterday is no more than a scare, we have the expectation of post-race ‘interviews’ at Aintree in a few weeks. She is the gift that keeps on giving. But we mustn’t ask too much of her. Horse Racing is not in need of a saviour. Not at the moment, anyway. Though give the B.H.A. a few more months of foot-in-mouth incompetence and her exuberant word-play might be needed to save us from the freefall of internecine distrust between the sport’s rulers and those they rule. Aintree, as Ted Walsh is fond of warning us, is not Disney World. It is expecting too much to expect Black Corton to win the Grand National and put the sport back on the front pages of the daily newspapers.

​When it was proposed a few years ago, for the benefit of handicappers and punters, that it should be mandatory for jockeys to ride out their mounts to beyond the winning post, I wrote to the Racing Post, many of whose columnists and tipsters thought the proposal worthy of adoption, to make it plain that racing would be going to Hell on a handcart if any rule was imposed on jockeys that compromised horse welfare, which I felt strongly would be the case.
So why am I so opposed by the B.H.A.’s present stance on horse welfare?
Let me state straight off that the B.H.A. is 100% correct to put horse welfare to the fore. Not one single issue in our great sport is more important, more integral, to the continuation of our sport than how the public perceive the sport cares for horses and Nick Rust is wholly correct when he says that racing must be on the front foot when it comes to horse welfare and not allow either Government or the ignorant anti-brigade to fashion the rules of our sport.
The problem is in the way the B.H.A. is going about protecting the welfare of the horse.
They hit a new low when one of the B.H.A. number deemed arm-waving a punishable offence, the stupidity compounded by the phrase ‘horses should be seen to run of their own free-will’. But last week’s efforts at Cheltenham to demonstrate the strictness of their horse welfare policy was nothing more than window-dressing. To have every horse vetted for injury before they were allowed to run gave a heavy-handed hint to the anti-brigade that it is not unusual for trainers to bring injured and sick horses to the races. It was an insult that I cannot believe either the trainers or their Federation tolerated without response. To suggest that supreme professionals such as Nicholls, Henderson, Mullins or Elliott, to name but four, would bring horses to the Festival that were not 100% fit was crass to the point of absurd. If the vetting procedure had been conducted on each horse after it had run it would have provided the sport with valuable data on the fitness or otherwise of horses after a hard race. It might also have picked up on injuries that ordinarily might not have manifested themselves until the next day.
The B.H.A. were opening a window for those in Parliament and the anti-brigade to witness a protocol that will not happen again until perhaps Aintree, a vetting procedure that certainly will not be happening at any race meeting today or any day soon. It was window-dressing. In no way could it have prevented the deaths of the three horses who sadly did not travel back to Ireland.
Of course, the B.H.A., even when they get something right, cannot help but cock-up a success story. To suspend a jockey for failing to pull-up a horse too tired to continue cannot be argued with. It is sensible and thoroughly consistent with a welfare policy that puts the horse first. But to punish the jockey who finished third when he opted not to pick up his whip after the last but not to punish the jockey who finished fourth who did opt to use his whip is worse than farcical, it shames the sport. Worse than that, it brings both the sport and its governance into disrepute. If Lavary does not get exonerated at his appeal, and congratulations to J.P. Mcmanus and his team for supporting Lavary, then the handcart is not only on the road to Hell but nearly at the precipice.
Nick Rust is right when he says racing must remain in control of its destiny and not go the way of fox-hunting and other activities that refused to acknowledge the change in society. Where racing differs, especially from fox-hunting, is that no one in the sport sets out to harm a horse and the B.H.A. should remind itself of this important aspect when it makes it rules regarding horse welfare. The B.H.A. must engage with trainers and jockeys before they bring in new procedures and protocols. It is the worst kind of publicity to have racing professionals at odds with its governing body over such a sensitive issue as horse welfare. Nick Rust is not a god amongst gods. He should not dictate to professionals on matters they know far more about than he will ever do. Jaw-jaw, as Churchill once said, is better than war-war. Nick Rust, before he opens his mouth on horse welfare again, would be well-advised to sit around a table to listen to what the trainers and jockeys have to say, to take on board their ideas on improving horse welfare.
The people who work with racehorses’ day in day out, the people who ride horses in races and the people who train and own them, the people who attend race-meetings, even the bookies, perhaps, have one common strand – they all love and respect horses. Perhaps when Nick Rust is at Westminster talking to the anti-brigade, he should show them Frodon winning the Ryanair and Bryony’s passionate and heart-rendering account of ‘his’ victory and the joy that was engendered by the willing harmony of horse and jockey and contrast that to the slaughtering of horses for dog-meat and the live transportation across Europe of horses, sheep and cattle, also for slaughter. Ballyward, Sir Erec and Invitation Only lived good lives, knew only love and respect and died honourably, with people desperate in their efforts to save them.
Just one final thought: the ‘Chair Fence’ at Aintree is so-called because someone called the ‘distance judge’ was stationed there whose job was to stop any horse and jockey that had not reached that point as the winner past the winning post. Perhaps ‘distance judges’ should be returned to the sport. It might have prevented the furore from the National Hunt Chase last week. 

​Can I say, without the threat of recrimination, that I found this year’s Gold Cup somewhat underwhelming? Well, I said it, so I will continue. In fact, I found the fourth day the least inspiring of the Festival, though that might be as a result of the heady heights of the day before.
It is brilliant that Willie Mullins has finally won the Gold Cup. No one deserved it more. If he had gone his whole career without at least one Gold Cup to his name it would have been as ridiculous as Nicky Henderson not winning a single race with the word ‘National’ in its title. Of course, now he has broken the hoodoo he’ll no doubt win four out of the next five Gold Cups with four different horses, though they will undoubtedly all be French-bred.
Next year the Gold Cup could be spectacular. Topofthegame, Santini, Delta Work and possibly, hopefully, Altior and Frodon. Al Boum Photo will, we must all hope, be back to retain his crown. The flip side of having a seven-year-old winning the Gold Cup is that it is a hard race and quite often fate can deal them with injury, as with Sizing John, that prevents them returning year after year as we once expected of Gold Cup winners. I suspect in the many darts Willie Mullins has thrown at the race over the decades he has sent out with expectation quite a few better horses than Al Boum Photo, which suggests to me that this year’s race was far from a classic.
Usually there is a horse to take out of the race for next year but this year I think it was more the horses that weren’t there that sit in the mind as possibilities for next year. Ratings do not ring true, of course, especially when applied to horses that have run over differing distances but Anibale Fly is now rated 174, the same as Frodon and given that Bryony Frost’s favourite warrior won the Ryanair by outstaying his rivals and that he has already won over virtually the same distance as the Gold Cup, it is not overstretching the imagination to think he would have finished first or second on Friday. I hope next year we have a good ground Gold Cup as that might tip the maestros Henderson and Nicholls into running Altior and Frodon in the big race rather than the Ryanair.
As with many people, I am sure, while he stood quite as a mouse to be shod, pondering to myself how the O’Brien’s get the colts under their care to be so well-behaved, I sort of fell in love with Sir Erec. This wonderful sport can be a right bastard when it has a mind too. It gives us unlimited joy with Frodon and Paisley Park on the Thursday and then skewers all that happiness by taking from us in the unkindest way a beautiful horse who might have reigned supreme for years to come. Still reeling.
Thinking on it for a moment, it might have been the dark shadow cast by Sir Erec’s cruel death that might have coloured my view of the Gold Cup, of the day.
Fourteen of the twenty-eight races were won by French-bred horses, the other fourteen by horses bred in Ireland. Not one British-bred horse won at the Festival, as worrying a statistic as the negativity about our sport in the corridors of Westminster. As with efforts to encourage more mares in the sport, which has proved extremely successful, something similar must be done to encourage the breeding of National Hunt stock in this country. Whether the problem lies with the type of stallion on offer to breeders or whether it is just fashion that is directing trainers to turn to France for their young horses, the situation must be addressed. Perhaps it has always been the same as I remember Richard Pitman would make a point of drawing the viewer’s attention when a big race was won by a British-bred horse.
So that is Cheltenham 2019. Let’s hope we all make Cheltenham 2020. My highlight this year was obviously Bryony Frost and Frodon. If only the B.H.A. could bottle both her passion for the sport and the horse and Frodon’s enthusiasm for the work man puts him to, the problem of funding would be half-solved. The best performance was Tiger Roll in the cross-country race. Effortless hardly does him justice. Just perfection. 

​I am old, sir, very ancient indeed and my fascination and love of the sport began when I was a child of small numbers. I remember Jimmy Frost when he was an up and coming jockey. I remember ‘Grandstand’ and the old television camera with a race from Ascot in the opening credits. And in all those decades of devotion to the sport there has never been a better advertisement for racing than Bryony Frost. Anyone who can go on social media with any negative comment about her must be in need of getting a life. No one in the history of the sport has ever portrayed to the media and the public the thrill or race-riding better or with more passion than Miss Frost. But what she does best, what is so refreshing about her, is that she is not shy at telling the world that she loves horses. She is also a damn fine rider and I doubt if any horse has had a better ride than the one she gave Frodon, even if she will insist that their victory in the Ryanair was all down to the horse and all she was doing was hanging on.
Of course, all talk of her becoming champion jockey is ridiculous. I doubt if she cares, for one thing and if the stable jockey at Ditcheat can’t get within fifty winners of Richard Johnson what chance someone who will probably never get the chance to be anyone’s stable jockey? What Bryony might achieve, though, is to win one of jumping’s classic races and that would be achievement enough. Already the sport is in debt to her, and to Paul Nicholl’s for both his belief in her and for the masterly way he has managed her career thus far.
The girl I feel sorry for is Lizzie Kelly. Why she gets no outside rides staggers me. Perhaps it has to do with personality as it cannot have anything to do with riding ability as the ride she gave Siruh Du Lac could not have been bettered by any of the senior male jockeys. She is not exactly an asset going to waste as her parents supply her with plenty of opportunities but she is definitely an underused resource.
The day was inspirational for reasons other than Frost and Kelly. Paisley Park, or at least his remarkable owner, added to the wonder and emotion of the day. People like Andrew Gemmell humble me. Apart from an all-round lack of talent and a knack bordering genius for falling short in all matters, I have no disability or impairment, yet while I languish amongst the spiritual unfulfilled, Mr.Gemmell makes light of his limitations by travelling the world to watch great sporting events. And because he sets himself no limits, he now owns not only a Cheltenham winner but a winner of one of the top races in the National Hunt calendar. I salute you, sir, and I hope Paisley Park brings you more joy over the coming seasons.
French-breds, by the way, won five out of the seven races yesterday, adding to the six from the previous two days. The British v Irish dual should really be French-breds v Irish and British breds, not that many Cheltenham winners these days hail from our shores. Apart from my dislike of horses with French language names – you may think I am just being xenophobic but wait a few years and see how easily it will be to extract from your memory the winners of the big races (Espoir D’Allen was it or Envoir D’Allen?  Defi Du Seuil or was it Eglantine Du Seuil?) – this is no big problem, except that in time the British-bred horses might end up on an extinction list. There really needs to be an incentive put in place to get breeders to produce more home-grown horses.
The downer yesterday was the announcement that the weighing room is about to lose Noel Fehily from its number. I hope he is given a fitting sending off by both his colleagues and the sport in general. A great jockey and by all accounts, a man of integrity and wisdom.

​Day two of the Cheltenham Festival will live long in the memory. Firstly, Altior equalled the achievement of Big Buck’s in winning his eighteenth race in a row and secondly, somehow, given the cross-country chase is possibly the weakest race out of the twenty-eight that comprise the meeting, Tiger Roll eclipsed in brilliance both the Champion Hurdler and the Champion 2-mile Chaser. Has the Glanfarclas ever been won in such a fashion? Rarely is any race at the Festival won in such a style, with the jockey hardly moving a muscle from flag-fall to finishing post. Has there ever been a horse like Tiger Roll? Bred to win a classic, he has won the Triumph over hurdles at the Festival, the 4-miler over the park fences, the Glenfarclas, twice, over the cross-country fences and if that was not enough versatility a Grand National as well. A star today, a legend for all time. Look after him, Gordon, you’ll never have another like him.
I am often disappointed by the conservatism of trainers and I hope Nicky Henderson doesn’t add to my personal list of woe by recanting on the suggestion, or was it a ‘promise’, to run Altior in the King George next Boxing Day. I agree with Matt Chapman that Altior’s official rating belies his true ability and with scant opposition around to test him over 2-miles we will only get a true measure of his brilliance when he steps up in trip. All the top-rated chasers are 3-milers and it is only in beating the likes of Clan des Obeaux will Altior receive a rating that befits his standing in the sport. Nicky Henderson’s big heartache next season will be, after winning the King George, whether to enter Altior in the Cheltenham Gold Cup.
It has to be regretted that the B.H.A. managed to take the gilt from the gingerbread of a great day’s racing by making yet another foot-in-mouth calamitous for the sport ruling. I have to admit I did not see the 4-miler on Tuesday and as I.T.V. are unlikely to show highlights of the race, bar the first and second jumping the last fence, my comments are second-hand. The bans given to Noel McParlan and Rob James may, in the present P.C. climate, be justified. If either of the horses they were riding had suffered a fatal injury when falling the furore would be heard from here to the Moon, with their decision-making very difficult to defend. Declan Lavary’s ban is, as I see the matter, hard to justify. He was in an impossible situation as whatever he decided he would have been wrong in somebody’s eyes. If he had pulled-up, as the stewards deemed was the correct decision, punters who had backed his mount to finish in the first three would have wanted to lynch him. There is also the pool money that goes to the stable staff to consider. Jerrysback did not fall at the last and according to A.P. McCoy’s testimony, the horse was fine the following morning. For the good of the sport, Lavary should appeal the decision. To witness the level of A.P.’s discontent with the ban and his obvious frustration at how the sport is being governed made for good television and one must assume that nobody connected to Jerrysback thought Lavary was in any way in the wrong.
In recent months the B.H.A. have become apologists for the sport. Nick Rust may suggest that the stewards panel made the decision to ban Lavary, and that it was comprised of two former professional jockeys, but they almost certainly acted on B.H.A. guidelines for the meeting. To my mind we have got to a situation with racing’s governance whereby the tail is wagging the dog. They might be improving the sport’s image with the public by experimenting with hands and heels races for professionals but instead they make knee-jerk rulings that the anti-brigade can turn against us. If in their review of the National Hunt Chase they decide that the problem lies with the distance then every 4-mile chase will come under scrutiny. As I said yesterday, restrict the race to professionals.
Resolute horse welfare is without doubt the most important factor going forwards. But over-zealous veterinary inspections, suggesting to the ignorant foe that trainers are in the habit of sending unfit horses to the races, smacks of seeing it done in 3-day eventing and instead of applying deep thought they make-up new stipulations copy-cat style. By the way, there is another welfare issue here. What if a horse is just cultivating the flu virus; wouldn’t a vet going from horse-to-horse be contaminating each horse in turn. Just a thought. Not that even the most scrupulous of equine inspections will prevent a horse falling and suffering a fatal injury. The B.H.A. is simply conducting a window-dressing exercise. The sort of procedure that a regulatory body would organise in light of its own ignorance and relying on the advice of others to form its regulations. And why are the vetting procedures for correct for Cheltenham but not for, example, Uttoxeter on Saturday or any other race meeting?
It is time for reform. It is time the B.H.A. board-members were replaced by professional racing people. I would go as far as to suggest we need to return to the days of the National Hunt Committee when National Hunt was governed by people with an intimate knowledge and love of the sport.
 

​It was pleasing to discover that Cheltenham were prepared to transfer Wednesday’s card to Saturday if weather conditions caused a postponement. From what I understand it took a bit of quick thinking on their feet, organising catering for the Saturday and so on, but at least they had a go-to plan of action in event of losing a day of the Festival to the weather. Full marks to them.
I remain, though, firmly of the opinion that a ‘fifth day’ or ‘Heath Day’ safety net should be run on the Saturday to accommodate a postponement to one of the days of the Festival in the future. As things might have panned out, given that any one of days of the Festival is of paramount importance to the sport, Cheltenham and Uttoxeter would have clashed this weekend, causing a great deal of changing of plans for jockeys and trainers alike. This would not happen in my perfect world if the Midlands National was switched to the Saturday before Cheltenham, making a great double-header with Sandown’s Imperial Cup. The Midlands National, remember, is as important to Uttoxeter as the Festival is to the whole of the racing fraternity.
What I love about horse racing, what renews my fascination year after year, decade after decade, is the utter unpredictability of the sport. The Champion Hurdle was widely touted as the best renewal for many a long year, with the top three in the betting having an innumerable number of vociferous supporters, with every other horse in the race completely neglected. Yet the best any of the market leaders could achieve was the fourth place of Laurina, a mare who should surely be running over fences next season. Apple’s Jade, sadly my banker of the meeting, ran so poorly that if they find nothing wrong with her, I would suggest never bringing her to Cheltenham again. Buveur D’Air fell early on, so it is hard to base any judgement on fact as to whether he would have defended his crown. Second place is where I believe he would have finished as Espoir D’Allen was such a decisive winner. To win by fifteen lengths without having to exert himself suggests Espoir D’Allen will win more than one Champion Hurdle. Let’s hope the fates are kind to him.
If the B.H.A. are to make any change to next year’s Festival, I would suggest consideration in throwing tradition to the wind and turning the 4-miler from an amateur race to one restricted to professionals. The fatal injury to Ballyward was in no way due to any shortcomings in his jockey as Patrick Mullins is as good a horseman as any professional. But the National Hunt Chase is a race for novices and run over close to 4-miles, with the majority of the jockeys quite young and no doubt fuelled by a greater degree of over-exuberance for riding at Cheltenham than experience of the big occasion. Certainly, the three jockeys given suspensions for failing to pull up when their mounts were obviously too weary to finish, with one inquiry still pending, suggests my concern is not without merit. It’s not as if the 4-miler is the only race confined to amateurs at the Festival as they have both the Kim Muir and the Foxhunters to show their skill and panache. The sport is so much more professional than back in the day when the 4-miler was the second most prestigious race in the calendar, with only the Grand National more highly considered. Amazingly, until comparatively recently, it was a race for maidens. Of course, it begs the question how a 4-mile maiden chase could have so much prestige that when the weather caused the meeting to be abandoned in the 1930’s the National Hunt Chase was rearranged and the Gold Cup was not? And if it can be changed from a maiden chase, why has no one thought about changing it to a race for professionals?
And on a day when the Irish just had the better of it, the best the Irish could provide came when Racheal Blackmore won the novice handicap chase on A Plus Tard for Cheveley Park and Henry de Bromhead. After Espoir D’Allen it would be stretching credulity to say he was the most impressive winner on the day but as he is the same age as the Champion Hurdler one must remark that he has exactly the same amount of potential. He could be anything next season.
Although it is 4-3 to the Irish after day one, it is also 4-3 to horses sporting French names and 5-3 to horses bred in France. I promise I am neither xenophobic nor do I especially have a prejudice against the French. I just find the sheer number of horses named using the French language – I know they were bred in France and were bought from French owners – as overkill. Chef des Obeaux, Clan des Obeaux, Alpha des Obeaux. The similarity or complexity of their names is really annoying to those of us who must get by with far fewer functioning brain cells than this time last year. Is it not enough to have to carry binoculars, form book and the Racing Post when attending the races? Must we now have to carry a French dictionary? Oh for the days when the majority of racehorses were raised on the Emerald Isle.

​Let’s begin by saying how lucky we are to have a one-hour programme on terrestrial television dedicated to the sport we love. We must appreciate the fortunate position we are in and support I.T.V.’s efforts to promote the sport both with their live racing coverage and ‘The Morning Show’ on both a Saturday and on the mornings of the major meetings.
I do wonder, though, if using the same formula for the Cheltenham Festival, the Grand National meeting and Royal Ascot as they do on the ordinary Saturday programme is the best way to grab the attention of the speculative viewer or the viewer surprised not to have his usual programme on at 9.30 and cannot be bothered to switch channels.
During this morning’s otherwise excellent ‘Morning Show’, there were mentions of films to be seen during the racing in the afternoon and I could not help but think that ‘The Morning Show’ would have been a better place to view these short films. Outside of the world of the dedicated racing fan the story of Richard and Kayley Woollacott would be unknown. To tell that story to an audience perhaps fresh to the sport, who has stumbled over ‘The Morning Show’ by accident, might engage them, might entice the viewer better effect to tune into the racing in the afternoon to see how, in this case, Lalor, gets on. Horse racing is imbued with human interest stories on a daily basis. It is a sport that rafts the rapids of life with tales of derring-do, tragedy and sheer undiluted joy.
As entertaining as Matt Chapman might be to you or me, as was proved by his short-lived stint on ‘Dancing on Ice’ rather sadly proved, he perhaps will more likely alienate the uninitiated rather than engage their curiosity. On the other hand, films about horses, the people who care for them and how they are trained, and films about the work of Greatwood and the retraining of racehorses etc, might spark the viewers interest and persuade them to the realisation that the sport is far more than just a medium for the winning and losing of money.
Horse racing’s main problem when it comes to growing a larger audience is one of perception. I have argued for a good while now that horse racing is in the main a sport of the working classes. Grooms, racecourse workers, betting shop employees, trainers by and large, even the majority of t.v. presenters, are from working class backgrounds. It is only at the upper echelons of the sport that ‘the Royal Ascot elite’ impression that people outside of racing have ingrained in their heads is to be found.
I can assure anyone reading this piece that people with no actual real-life experience of racing believe the sport is either all about betting or an amusement for the mega-rich. We will never grow the audience until these perceptions are known to be false, a left-over of a time long gone.
The heartbeat of this sport is not found in the betting ring but in stables at the crack of dawn. This is where the truth of the sport should be drawn. Depictions of the hard work, dedication and love of the horse, if distributed amongst the masses through programmes like ‘The Morning Show’, would better serve the promotion and marketing of the sport rather than the enthusiasm of the teller at the amounts of money being wagered on any single horse.
Of course it is all too easy to criticise, to offer well-meant advice and suggestion when you have no idea of budget. But when there is a captive audience it is beholding on the programme-maker to captivate and during Cheltenham this weekday mornings and during Aintree and Royal Ascot, I have the impression that I.T.V. are missing an opportunity. The horse is our best advertising and marketing tool. That is where we should go to win hearts and engage minds.