​There will be a continuous diet of hyperbole this week regarding the Epsom Derby being the greatest horse race in the world. Don’t buy into it. The race, to my way of thinking, someone who has followed horse racing for nearly sixty-years, is that the race is becoming an anachronism, a sporting event that though important and vital to the participants, actually means very little to the public at large. I suspect, in Australia the same might be said of the Melbourne Cup and in America about the Kentucky Derby, though as those jurisdictions have no appreciable National Hunt racing the Melbourne Cup and the Kentucky Derby may have greater resonance with the Australian and American public than the Epsom Derby has to the British public.
Apart from the date it is run, I have few reservations about the actual race. It’s main selling point is that it is run on Epsom Downs, a racecourse like no other, as this element provides jeopardy. Will the favourite get in a good position for galloping down Tattenham Hill? Which horses are better able to adapt to galloping downhill? Then there is the camber and the distance. Variables that play their part every year in determining the winner.
But the race has lost its lustre, whereas the Grand National and to a lesser extent the Cheltenham Gold Cup remain in the public eye. I actually believe Royal Ascot is head and shoulders above Epsom in the affections, if that is the correct description, of the sporting and non-sporting public. Something needs to be done to restore the Derby to its former glorious status.
I would have no hesitation to returning the race to a Wednesday and have the Derby meeting two-weeks after Royal Ascot. When staged on a Wednesday it allowed working people the opportunity of a day-off (even if they skive off work) during the week, allowing people to look forward to the Derby, to plan their day, to associate the Derby with fun and, to use an old-fashioned phrase, gay abandon. When run on a Wednesday, the Epsom Derby was as much a working man’s race as it was a social event for high society.
I cannot believe that running the Epsom Derby later in the season cannot but bring about anything other than benefits to owners, trainers and the horses. As it was last year due to government restrictions, the big 3-year-old race for colts at the Royal Ascot, the King George the 5th, gained greater relevance for the season as it became the main trial for the Derby. The race led on to something bigger and better. The Coronation Cup would also benefit, I believe.
But where the Epsom Derby is losing out big-time is in the archaic method of entry. Rather like Harrow and Eton, horses are signed up to the race before they are even broken-in, let alone breezing up the home gallops. What this determines is that for a year-and-a-half all we get is horses being taken out of the race and only vague promises, even at the end of their two-year-old seasons, of what might turn out at Epsom in the first Saturday in June.
We should dispense with the preliminary entry stages and as with the Grand National have a first entry 3-months before the race. Actually, give the public a list of horses that at least potentially will line up for the race. Provide racing journalists with fodder in which to excite the betting public and start an active ante-post market, with bookmakers chalking up their odds a week after the entries become known.
The day of the Grand National entries is a day in the calendar for National Hunt enthusiasts, as is the day the weights are announced. The Epsom Derby needs a similar build-up, similar anticipation. As I write, 5-days before the race is run, I have only a vague idea of what will turn-out. It’s all very well Aidan playing his hand close to his chest but is that, as professional as it might be, beneficial to the race? If he is going to run eight, name them? Even if one or two go missing come the day.
If the Epsom Derby is ‘the greatest horserace in the world’, which I doubt, even on the flat, it cannot be allowed to wallow in its ancient history. What was proper in 1821 is not necessarily good for the race in 2021. The Epsom Derby needs change; but that does not mean the Downs must lose the gypsies, the fairground or the unique graduations of the course itself.

​With racing, and history I believe confirms what I am about to claim, it is always one step forward followed by one-and-a-half steps back. The Jason Watson suspension is a prime example. As was the treatment handed out to the recently restored to full employment Robert Havlin.
The B.H.A., I.T.V., jockeys, trainers etc, assure the public at every opportunity that the horse comes first; the sport has at its forefront the welfare of the horse. Which is as it should be, of course. 
Firstly, it borders on the ridiculous to find Watson guilty of not obtaining the best possible placing, for not making real, timely or substantial effort, though his suspension was reduced to five-days due to ‘low level damage to the integrity of racing’, when it is hard to fathom how he infringed the integrity of racing by putting the best interests of the horse before all other considerations. Was he supposed to subject this first-time out two-year-old to a hard race just to satisfy stewards who Watson suspects ‘has it in for him’ due to committing several riding offences in as many weeks?
The horse had lost all chance of winning by cocking its jaw as it came out of the stalls, a fact not even the stewards or the disciplinary panel disagree with. The rule that commits a jockey in a similar situation or worse – a rider must be seen to be doing something and to seen to do something throughout the race – is a catch-all regulation that stewards can turn to their advantage if ‘they have it in for a jockey’. If a jockey on an obviously beaten horse drops his hands and allows his mount to school around can be asked into the stewards’ room at the stewards’ discretion. If the jockey pulls up, there will be no retribution. My advice to Watson in the future, and any jockey that finds himself (or herself) out of contention by the first furlong, is to pull-up and claim you thought the horse might be injured. You can also use the term ‘I put the welfare of the horse first’ as it is now the new mantra for the sport.
Oh, and secondly, this sort of response by stewards and disciplinary panels brings the sport into disrepute. Watson, justifiably, was ‘easy’ on a horse with no chance of winning and had little chance of being placed, a kindness and a testament to his horsemanship that has landed him with a 7-day, reduced to 5-day, suspension of his licence. If he had given his mount nine cracks of the whip, he would have most likely only received a 4-day ban. Meat and drink to those who wish our sport only harm.
There is a thirdly; neither Havlin nor Watson were riding for a trainer with a reputation for betting coups. I suspect neither Gosden nor Charlton even have an account with a bookmaker. And when a B.H.A. spokesman sees fit to add that ‘stewards do an outstanding job up and down the country every day …. Without favour and putting the welfare of the horse and rider above all other concern’ – Really!

Commentators on the sport, again justifiably, to a man and woman, condemn levels of prize money in this country and claim, again rightly, that it is major deterrent to persuading both new people to the sport and existing owners to increase their patronage. And though there are plenty of basement bargains to be had in the sales ring, the top end of the thoroughbred spectrum has got totally out-of-hand. Yes, a horse is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it but when the winner of a maiden at an Irish point-to-point sales for over half-a-million big ones, the world of racing has gone potty. For arguments sake, let’s say Monkfish came up for sale, would he make more or less than a Colin Bowe trained winner of a maiden at an Irish point-to-point? Common sense says of course he would; he’s a possible Cheltenham Gold Cup winner, while the maiden winner might turn out nothing more, as so many of these fancy-priced young horses do, than a handicapper. Potential is greater prized by trainers and the big owners than top-class form in the book. 
If you were to transfer this thinking to the literary world the synopsis would worthy of greater acclaim than the finished novel.

​Following on from Robert Havlin’s 3-week suspension, Jason Watson now finds himself subject to suspension for not ‘taking all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his mount obtained the best possible placing’. In his defence, Watson, quoted in today’s Racing Post’, said. ‘Due to the circumstance of my race, I did what was best for the horse and if I get penalised for that then something needs to change with the people who apply these rules and bans’.
Jason Watson is 100% correct in his statement. Stewards who bring the sport into disrepute by disregarding the welfare of horses should be removed from their positions. As Watson continued. ‘At the end of the day, my race had gone and I’d realised that in the first furlong and a half. As well as winning races, my priority is to take care of the animal and bring them back safely. On the mental side, it’s not a very nice experience for a first-time out 2-year-old to be driven to finish nowhere.’
The story of the race at Nottingham is this: Watson’s mount veered violently left leaving the stalls and was soon well adrift of the other runners, eventually finishing seventh of the eight runners in the 6-furlong maiden.
To my mind, Watson rode a sensible and caring race on a horse that because of the incident leaving the stalls had no chance of winning or being placed. As with the Havlin case, who was also riding a horse having its first race, with the other similarity being both horses are trained by highly respected and successful trainers neither of whom are known for being ‘betting stables’, it seems the stewards would have preferred to have seen Watson draw his whip drawn and hard drive his horse for six-furlongs rather than to apply kindness and horsemanship to the situation. When will the B.H.A. understand that in today’s society handing out 21-day bans, as it was with Havlin, and 7-days to Watson, for being ‘easy’ on a horse and yet only banning a jockey for 4-days when over-zealous use of the whip is the offence, only serves to show horse racing to its distractors in a very poor light?
Regrettably, Havlin chose not to appeal his suspension. Watson is to appeal and for the good of the sport I hope he succeeds in having the suspension overturned. Not that the Nottingham stewards will receive a rap over the knuckles for their sensationist incompetence. Not publicly, anyway. The underlying story with Watson, he alleges, is that he is being victimised, having received 4 bans in the last 5-weeks. Whether that is true or not is not meaningful to the Nottingham inquiry which has to considered on its own merits.
It was, I accept, perfectly valid for there to be an inquiry on the day. When horses run erratically the stewards should always inquiry, if only to establish and record all the relevant facts, as should their findings be relayed to the public. But horses are not mechanised; they are sentient beings, with thoughts and persuasions not naturally in synchronisation with the requirements of their jockeys. This was a 2-year-old having its first experience of the racecourse and for it to have been subject to a hard race, with whip drawn and hard driven, could easily have soured the horse for life, leaving it useless as a racehorse. Watson acted not only in the best interests of the horse but the best interests of its owner and trainer. Watson should be commended not punished. For bringing the sport into disrepute, for arming our opponents with slings and arrows to use against us, it is the stewards who deserve to be sanctioned.

​When someone like Joe Mercer dies, a former jockey who you have always regarded as one of the supreme riders of your lifetime, a jockey who was at the top of the sport during not only your formative introduction to horse racing, he began riding in 1953, a year before my birth, and was there at the heart of the summer sport into ones own middle age, the passing reinforces the reality that you too are closing in on your own demise. I read the birthday list in the Racing Post daily and I find it hard to believe that the jockeys of my early years are now in their sixties, seventies and eighties. Where have the years flown to? Why is it in my head I am the age I was when Joe Mercer retired, 1986, and yet all the evidence suggests I too am old enough for my passing to be no surprise to anyone who knew me back then?
Only recently, I.T.V. broadcast an old interview by Brough Scott with Smokey Joe, pipe-smoking as you would expect, reminiscing on his time in the saddle and it was a joy to see him fit, if older, with seemingly a long retirement ahead of him. Sad, and yes, I know, life is simply a coming and a going and Joe, as with all us, has now left this earthly realm. I hope he died happy and his family will rejoice in the respect he engendered throughout his life, and if there is an afterlife, let’s hope he is reunited with his brother Manny, killed in fall at Ascot racecourse just as Joe was making his mark as a jockey.

When Joe Mercer began his career there was very little sponsorship of races and as he progressed historic horse races became ever more frequently taken hostage by commercial interests and while in National Hunt the sponsorship of Whitbread and Hennessey kickstarted the resurgence of the sport and the support of global companies elevated the prize money on offer for the classics and other prestige races, there has been consequences that I believe have had a negative effect on the sport. I refer to the decline in importance, and indeed in some cases the complete loss, of races that in Joe’s day were considered by owners, trainers and jockeys as being of high importance.
I believe the B.H.A. could do the sport, both flat and National Hunt, a great service if the majority of these lost and diminished races could be restored to the race calendar. I refer to races like the Great Metropolitan which since Epsom retired its longer course has been reduced in distance and prestige. It was of race of enough significance for Captain Sir Cecil Boyd-Rochfort to include in his list of major races won during his career. For the record he won it twice, in 1961 with Little Buskins and 1964, with Gold Aura.
Other races that should be considered for a reboot are the Rosebery Memorial at Kempton, the Jubilee Handicap, the City and Suburban at Epsom, the Queen’s Prize, the Great Yorkshire Chase, the Gainsborough Chase, and those sponsored inspired novice hurdle and chase series, the Panama and Wills races. And I might also add those major races that were run at racecourses now defunct, like the Derbyshire Handicap and the Manchester Cup.
We have sacrificed continuity to the demands of commercialism. I am not suggesting reinstating the old will be a panacea for the ills of today. Far from it. We are in desperate need of visionaries with bold plans to swell the sports coffers. Yet taking a step back might remind us all that though racing must be managed as a business enterprise, it is also very much a sport, a sport with a very long history and such races as the Jubilee (the Great Jubilee) and the Great Yorkshire Chase are embedded at the heart of that history. And, yes, nominally many of these ‘lost’ races remain in the calendar either much diminished in stature or under the blanket of a sponsors name, my point is that the Skybet Chase has little resonance, whereas the Great Yorkshire is a title as rich in provenance as a tapestry hanging in a medieval royal castle.

​People, mainly jockeys and trainers, it has to be said, continue to enthusiastically make the claim that the Epsom Derby is the greatest horse race in the world. I disagree, though it undoubtedly is one of the most famous. I suspect the same claim is made for the Melbourne Cup and the Kentucky Derby. 
The Epsom Derby has lost its panache, its place in the collective mindset of the population. There was a time when Parliament would recess so that politicians so inclined could get to Epsom before the off and the hoi polloi of London would set off for Epsom by any means of transport they could find, including shanks’ pony. There are many reasons for the demise of the race in the eyes of the public and it is not entirely due to a dip in the popularity of the sport, after all, Royal Ascot and the Grand National continue to have appeal, even if, again, it is not what it once was.
I have enthused about horse racing for the past sixty-years and in my formative years anticipation of the Derby was on a par with the Grand National, more so, I suspect, than the Cheltenham Festival. But back in those days, even when there were short-priced favourites, there would be over twenty runners, with many small stables involved, even if they were mostly outsiders that inevitably got in the way coming down Tattenham Hill, and always horses from France. Always.
Nowadays if Aidan O’Brien were to only run one horse and not the battalion that is his custom, the field could easily be less than 10, with no French raider, as seems like will be the case this season. And nowadays obvious Derby contenders, or seemingly obvious contenders, might be tempted away to the French Derby or kept for the Royal meeting as if the Derby is no longer the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It is now the 16th of May, with the race a little over 3-weeks away and yet the ante-post market is speculative due to not knowing which horses Aidan O’Brien will run and how many. And there remains an asterisk against more than one runner, with decisions as to whether to run undecided until a few days before the race. Compare that to the Cheltenham Gold Cup. Any top-class 3-mile chaser will be aimed at Cheltenham and as long as it is fit and well it will be in the line-up come the Friday of the meeting. It is the aim all season. Since the inception of the Ryanair the ground has become a factor in the decision whether to run or not but in the main the Cheltenham Gold Cup has not lost one iota of its kudos.
The Derby on the other hand is fast becoming just a stop along a journey to the breeding shed. There is positively no romance anymore in the Derby. Commercialism is king; flat racing is a global business, an investment on a par with the art market, the sporting element existing as an add-on.
High Definition was favourite ante-post for the past part of eight-months, yet after one run there is now a question mark over his participation, with the Irish Derby seen as a more favourable race for him due to his action. Of course, his action, the ganglyness of his frame, has not changed over the winter. If he was seen as the best bet for the Derby in October last year and April this year, why wouldn’t he cope with the undulation of the Epsom course in June? Aidan O’Brien is known for pulling rabbits out of hats and it is perfectly possible High Definition could yet line-up at Epsom with Ryan Moore on his back, with Bolshoi Ballet as the second string. High Definition may ‘come forward’, as Aidan always tells us when one of his horses is in need of a run to bring it to full fitness and proceed to win by ten-lengths with Bolshoi Ballet falling down the hill and finishing last. It is a horse race, after all. I hope not.
I’ll be honest; I get bored with Coolmore winning the Derby year after year. It is even no longer a novelty when one of their fourth or fifth strings wins the race, as was the case last year. I don’t expect it to happen as the horse looks immature for such a test but I would like John Leeper to win for Ed Dunlop as there is an element of romance involved and it would be a step forward for the race if a new name could appear on the honour roll. 
But to return to why there is a dip in the popularity of the Epsom Derby. Even if the public knew the names of any of the likely runners in the race, as of today does anyone know what the composition of this year’s race might look like? How can anyone outside of the racing pundit or anyone with an ante-post ticket have a fancy for the race when there is only a vague notion of what horses will run?

​Apart for the twelve-months when I supplied ‘Racing Ahead’ magazine with articles in exchange for free promotion for this site, I do not promote horseracingmatters.com. I regard the site as purely a vanity outlet to allow me to express my opinions and ideas on a sport that has been central to my life for the best part of sixty-years. Indeed, it quite possible not ‘the best part’ but actually sixty-years, which is scary to admit to. The site is also a form of quiet therapy: when you care so deeply about a subject it is medicinal to the soul to be able to put into words your opinions, even if those opinions will largely fall unread into the ether of the world wide web.
Since the days of the Sporting Life, when that paper was in competition with the Sporting Chronicle, I have had my views and opinions in print. But, of course, it is at the whim of the editor if my letter witnessed the light of day. Also, my ire can be toned down, passages excised, the letter read by a journalist who in turn writes a column more eloquently and precisely on the very issue I wanted to call my own. Such is life.
During this period of time, or perhaps the middle to latter stages of this period, when the Racing Post came into existence, I suspect, I wrote short stories based on racing themes. I admit that I was responding to the genre of racing fiction that depicted the sport and the people involved in its day-to-day life that was, and remains, one-dimensional, the central themes always being sexual exploits and scandal. I blame Dick Francis. And ex-jockeys who should have known better.
So, my aim was to write about horse racing in a more positive manner, using the sport as either a backdrop to a more conventional genre or putting the sport at the very heart of the fiction. There is, I discovered, though not as quickly as someone with any intelligence might have done, two underlying faults with my thinking: firstly, editors and publishers only require sex and scandal, as if horse racing was not known for romance and integrity, and secondly, and this is perhaps glaringly obvious, I suppose, no one has ever written a fictional racing novel or short story that is equal to any 2.00 pm at Hexham, Kempton or Salisbury, let alone the Grand National, Epsom Derby or Cheltenham Gold Cup.
In a twelve-runner handicap hurdle at Hexham there can be story-lines about twelve jockeys, twelve trainers, twelve owners (or more if partnership and syndicates are involved) plus all the stable and racecourse staff. One horse falls, runs loose, cuts across a hurdle and takes six horses out the race, causes a serious injury to a jockey requiring an air ambulance and you have more drama and tension than any writer can instil in a plot.
I had to concede there was no market for racing themed short stories. I also have an unpublished racehorse related novel ‘The Horse Listener’ which will never see the light of day, though as I sit here, I am reminded that though complete I am still to fine-comb it for errors, even if no editor will ever get his or her muddling paws on it.
So, for my own sense of completion several years ago I self-published the collection of twenty-six stories under the title of ‘Going To The Last’. For anyone with a sense of adventure there is a link to the e-book and hard copy close to where you are now. If I remember – and yes this is the extent to which I have marketed the collection that I am uncertain as to how it is priced – the e-book is £1.99 (and still it has hardly sold into double digits) and the hard copy £8.99. For 26 stories that is better value than it might first appear. How many would the reader have to enjoy for it to be value for money?
Look, I know my worth as a writer and though I have a certain amount of pride in quite a few of the stories in the collection – ‘A Grey Day’, ‘Yesterday’s Magic’, ‘Yes, I Fear He Is. I Fear He Is’ and ‘Emily’s Smile of Wonder’, in particular – I appreciate anyone with no interest in the sport, such as editors of mainstream publications, will have no hook to hang their imagination on. I give this warning to other hopefuls fly-fishing in racing fiction waters: it is a genre with limited appeal unless you are Jilly Cooper or the son of Dick Francis.
Did I market the book? Yes, but though it is relatively cheap and easy to self-publish, to get it sold in the numbers whereby you have return profit, or even cover your publishing costs, you need a very large marketing fund. I e-mailed nearly every trainer listed in ‘Horses In Training’ and I think I took out an advert in ‘Racing Ahead’ but other than that, in my normal lacklustre way, I chanced to luck, which might have been the case even if I could have afforded to advertise on the side of a bus or taken a full-page in the Racing Post.
I self-published because it enlivened my soul and allowed me to claim to be an author with a book to prove it. Actually, I have two; I have an e-book titled ‘Linda Versus God’, a novel that has nothing at all to do with horse racing and which I do not recommend if you are at all religious. ‘Going To The Last’ is an honest-to-goodness collection of stories written with sincerity and a hope to improve the image of the sport to people who thus far have only read about sex and scandal in other horse-racing themed fiction. Some of the stories are better than others but that is true of all short story collections. If you are the kind-hearted sort of person who puts coins into the hats of the homeless, your soul might be enlivened if you purchased this book. I am not recommending it, though. That’s just not in me. Which is why I am where I am in life.

​I am writing, of course, of horse racing in Great Britain, the ancient home of the sport.
Since the more scandalous times of the 19th century there has always been fabulously wealthy men prepared to fritter away a good proportion of their fortunes by ‘investing’ in thoroughbreds. In the thirties Maharajahs indulged themselves in British racing as Sheikhs do now. With the notable exception of the Aga Khan perhaps British racing has not known anyone with the enthusiasm and longevity of Sheikh Mohammed and the racing enthusiast and the sport must cherish him as it might be a very long time into the future before his ‘like’ devotes so much energy again to the breeding and racing of the thoroughbred.
I am not sure exactly what role the B.H.A. has within the sport, whether it exists simply to adjudicate on disputes and objections, to protect the rules of the sport or to be the figurehead upon which government can lean upon. What it should exist for, and if it is amongst its role, they are doing a very poor job of it, is to ensure British racing is the best in the world. Yes, we have the most famous races but what does that count for if all around the Derby, Grand National, St. Leger, Cheltenham Gold Cup, etc, the infrastructure is rusting and falling into ruination? 
Prize money is the ill, the virus, if you will, that is the cause of sport’s failing health. Everyone knows it and the world and his wife seem to talk about it and some even put forward solutions to end the malaise. The B.H.A., on the other hand, seemingly neither notice the slide into obscurity for our sport they administer nor do they advance any solutions to return Britain to the forefront of the sport worldwide.
Of course, there is one glaring solution and it stares everyone in the face. It is the funding revenue that every other sporting nation adopted many moons ago but which is rejected by pundits and the sport’s governing body. Given the choice, I would rather have a ‘Tote Monopoly’ providing lucrative funding than bookmakers providing ‘atmosphere’ on our racecourses any day of the week. It is not an elephant in the room but a whole bloody herd of elephants and to continue with the policy of ‘that ship has sailed’ in an age when the technology is there to bring the sport to every human on the planet, virtually, (in both senses of the word) is incomprehensible to me.
So, my vision for a more optimistic future for the sport begins (and almost ends) with betting revenue finance.
The whip issue has gone on for far too long and needs to be brought to rest a lot quicker than the B.H.A.’s steering group will allow. I am in the ‘one crack and that’s that’ camp and it should be trialled as soon as possible. The British government, if you are not aware, has debated a ‘sentient being’s act’ which will give rights of emotion and sensation to all animals with a backbone’; although this is a beautiful and forward thinking change of direction, it will give politicians an enabling position to ban the use of the whip on racehorses, and perhaps even ban the sport. If the ‘steering group’ come to the conclusion that all is right as it is with the whip we are doomed, to be labelled cruel, the sport’s future as secure as bear-baiting and cockfighting. ‘One crack and that’s that’ will mean less injuries to horses as they will be less prone to ‘rolling off a true line and putting weight onto limbs not designed to take such a burden at full-speed’ and less stewards’ inquiries; it will also improve the way jockeys ride as keeping a horse balanced and galloping in a straight line will become their priority. History informs us that there was an outcry when riding spurs were banned and when nudge and jostle was outlawed. Once upon a time it was neither illegal nor against the rules of racing for horses to be doped. In ten-years it will be wondered why jockeys were ever allowed to hit a horse eight, nine, ten or more times.
There are other improvements that could be made to the sport: a more varied race-programme; a greater effort to allow every trainer, jockey and owner to turn a profit or at least not make a loss; more races per meeting but less meetings per day; the summer jumping programme could be similar to Ireland with more three and four-day festivals so that jockeys, trainers and owners can make a greater contribution to local economies; greater incentives for people to breed racehorses; and the mental health of the sport’s working community should be given greater priority over the needs and wants of media and the bookmaking industry.
But no strategy or great idea will have legs unless the finance of the sport is on a par with France, Ireland, Australia, Hong Kong and the U.S. Million-pound races is like kicking sand into the face of the starving when the majority of prize money on a daily basis is below £3,000 per race.
It is all well and good trainers and owners, in particular, bleating about their concerns for the sport but why aren’t they putting pressure on the B.H.A. to come-up with solutions, especially when the solution to all racing’s ills is so bloody obvious?

​For all the legend that she is, no one can take the view that Dawn Run was one of the great horses of National Hunt. History-maker, yes; the only mare to win both the Champion Hurdle and Cheltenham Gold Cup, the achievement that I read is tempting the connections of Honeysuckle for next season. Dawn Run was a mighty racehorse who sadly met a tragic end running in a race her connections could have easily left alone. She is legend of the sport and should never be forgotten but her achievements would hardly get her into the top fifty or even top hundred (a bit extreme, I suspect) of all-time.
When in 1986 Dawn Run heroically got up to beat Wayward Lad a length, she was receiving 5Ibs from all her opponents and at level weights it is almost inarguable that she would not have got up.
These days mares receive a 7Ib gender allowance and it is this well-meaning and highly successful incentive to encourage owners and breeders to have mares in training that contorts all debate when it comes to assessing the truly great from the out-of-the-ordinary racehorses of National Hunt.
The gender allowance is unarguable in novice hurdles and chases and in higher grades of race. But at championship level the gender allowance becomes unfair. Honeysuckle is now the best hurdler in Britain and Ireland; no one could argue otherwise and she would have, in my estimation, won the 2021 Champion Hurdle off level weights. She was the most impressive Champion Hurdle winner, again in my estimation, since the days of Istabraq. She didn’t beat a field of high a quality as when Night Nurse, Sea Pigeon and Monksfield were swapping crowns but then it is very unlikely we will ever witness so many supreme horses running in Champion Hurdles again. Her superiority was on display for all to see; so why in every race she runs in from now on will she receive 7Ib from clearly inferior opposition? There are no incentives necessary for her owner to keep her in training other than the glory and satisfaction she must bring to him. Of course, brave and patient man that he is, Kenny Alexander is building-up a National Hunt breeding operation and Honeysuckle will one day become his stand-out broodmare, not that I can see him choosing to retire her early while she has hardly tapped into her true potential.
Once a mare has reached a certain official rating or has won a championship race, the 7Ib gender allowance should be reduced, perhaps in instalments outside of the championship races and to level weights come the festivals of Cheltenham and Punchestown. Honeysuckle, like all mature mares, is not physically weaker than a gelding. She could pull a cart or plough every bit as well as a gelding and carrying 12-stone would hardly burden her. It is easy to imagine Honeysuckle winning the next two Champion Hurdles to draw her equal to all the other triple winners but the gender allowance will always distort the reckoning as to whether she was the equal to Sir Ken, Persian War and Istabraq.
You may say what difference does it matter, its only opinion or bias, isn’t it? We will never know if she would have beaten Sir Ken or Persian War off level weights. Which is true. But the sport’s history demands we know the difference between the out-of-the-ordinary, the great and the greatest horses of all-time and the gender allowance unbalances the calculations.
I will be as surprised as anyone if I am consulted as to the future of Honeysuckle but if Mr. Alexander were to ask my opinion, I would offer him this nugget of advice. If she is as good a jumper of a fence as we are led to believe, if you do not at least school her over steeplechase fences you will one day look over the paddock railing at her, with foal at foot, and think ‘I wonder what would have happened if we had given chasing a try’. And you will wonder and wonder and wonder. If she should school brilliantly, run her in a novice chase, perhaps at one of Ireland’s charming country (gaff) courses when the pressure will be least. Then you will have evidence upon which to base your long-lasting decision. She might knock your socks off with her ability over a fence or she might be chancy, too frightening to watch and Rachael might pull her up, and the decision will be made for you. Her history will either be three champion hurdles or one champion hurdle and possibly one Dawn Run equalling Cheltenham Gold Cup.
But the unfair 7Ib gender allowance in championship races has to be looked at again by the B.H.A..