​On Wednesday, July 29th, the Bangor-on-Dee stewards banned jockey Shane Quinlan under the non-triers rule for 16-days and conditional jockey Charlie Todd for 8-days for continuing on a horse that was tailed off, apparently through fatigue.
To my mind the duration of these two suspensions are the wrong way round. In effect, Quinlan was suspended for 16-days in finishing fourth when the stewards were of the opinion that, with a little more effort, he could have finished third. Todd was given an 8-days holiday for what others might define as cruelty, continuing to race a horse unfit to do so. A post-race examination of Ahead of the Curve by a veterinary officer found him to have an irregular heartbeat and showing signs of heat-stress, though in the stewards room, according to the Racing Post in its race report, the veterinary officer failed to reveal any abnormalities with the post-race condition of the filly Lyrical Ballad.
I watched neither race and have no axe to grind with either jockey and my comments are based on the suspensions and not the riding of either rider. I do not believe either jockey set out with any intention of wrong-doing, especially Todd, as I do believe for one moment that any jockey is capable of deliberate cruelty.
The thing is this; if someone in Africa is seen in the background of a news report beating his obviously tired donkey with a whip or when carrying a load far too great for it to bear, viewers would be of the opinion that cruelty was afoot and would be up in arms about it. 
When a jockey does not pull-up an obviously exhausted horse the similarities with the ignorance of the above scenario is plain. To my mind Todd should have received the 16-day ban and even then, others might be of the opinion he got off lightly. Quinlan got double the length of suspension for basically not improving his position by 2-lengths, the distance he finished behind the third-placed horse. 
The punishments for jockeys when they break the rules of racing are long overdue an urgent review. The rules should be 100% on the side of the horse, whereas at the moment the rules make it quite plain that the sensitivities of punters is of greater importance than the welfare of the horse. This sends out entirely the wrong message to our detractors at a time when the general call-to-arms is to attract a greater diversity of people to the sport. When a jockey gets a longer ban for breaking the whip rules than for dropping his hands a yard or two before the winning post or for being considered to have given a horse an easy race, the message is unequivocal.
Remember, what we might refer to as a jockey getting every ounce of effort out of his mount at the end of a race is considered by those from outside of the sport, our detractors, if you like, as ‘hitting a horse’, an act if seen by the general public outside of the sporting arena would be viewed as illegal and cruel and a case for either the R.S.P.C.A. or the police to investigate.
On a similar topic: an independent disciplinary panel of the B.H.A. overturned the 10-day ban imposed by the Yarmouth stewards on Rab Havlin for what some considered dangerous riding, whilst others deemed an unfortunate racing incident. Again, hands up, I have not viewed the race and have no real opinion on the whys and wherefores of this particular incident and Havlin is correct in saying ‘but because it looks really bad doesn’t mean somebody must have done something really bad’. Anyone who has ridden racehorses, or any horse for that matter, will tell you that horses, when they have mind to or are startled, can move very quickly in any direction, even up and down. One second you are in the saddle and the next either in a heap on the ground or hurtling through the air. It is fact and it can happen to the very best of riders.
But Kevin Blake is absolutely right; eventually, if the emphasis is not on keeping a horse straight at all times, however impossible this can be achieved at all times, someone is going to get killed or mangled. Any inquiry after the event will be too late. At Yarmouth Tom Marquand and Harry Bentley got away without injury but it will not always be that way. It may not have been Havlin’s fault but as long as jockeys can get away with not keeping straight, they will be tempted to step over the line, even if it means arguing their case in front of the stewards. To my mind, Havlin should have received a suspension of a few days or at the very least a caution.
It is one of my arguments for ‘whipless races’, that if jockeys could not use a whip in earnest, they would have to put greater emphasis on keeping their mounts running in a straight line, using their arms, legs and torso to generate the forward thrust required in a driving finish. I also contend that if horses at the end of a race, when they reaching the end of their energy resources and the lactic acid is kicking in, were kept running straight, there would less strain placed on their tendons and ligaments and would, I am quite certain, suffer less small-scale and career-ending injuries. 

​When racing journalists, the Horseman Group (owners) and others moan, constructively, of course, about the level of prize money in this country compared to, for example, France, it is rarely mentioned that competing racing jurisdictions are not hidebound by not having independent bookmakers profiting from their racing. It is an inconvenient truth that should not be pushed to one side of the debate.
Here lies the rub, neigh the truth of the situation. France may use sponsors to shore-up prize money levels of their major races but substantially they can finance their racing through betting turnover. It is why Dieppe the other day could have more prize money on offer for one day’s racing than all the meetings in this country put together. We should not envy but learn and profit from hard truths.
Yes, as anyone who has experienced French racing will freely tell you, racing over there lacks atmosphere. It is very much like racing here is at the moment. And some, like Matt Chapman, to give but one example, seemingly would prefer horse racing here to go to the wall than to nationalise bookmakers, on-course as well as the big global enterprises. I, for one, and perhaps I am in a majority of one, would prefer to see the sport thrive and if that can only be achieved through some kind of ‘Tote Monopoly’ then I would embrace ‘the new normal’ with enthusiasm, even if I would also admit that in the short term the racecourse and the High Street might seem a bit odd.
In the age in which we live, with I.T. and all that jazz not so much at the centre of our lives but leading us in a direction that only the few are aware of, I would have thought it should be possible to create a ‘Tote Monopoly’ that mirrors, if only minimally, the betting sector of the here and now.
Go back a few decades and betting on sport was almost entirely about horse racing. Now, horse racing provides bookmakers with only a part of their revenue. Sports betting is huge, with bookmakers offering odds on most sports played anywhere in the world. I do not see why the major betting firms should not still have a place on our high streets. They could still show racing on the screens, while acting as agents for racing own bookmaking machine.
Of course, nationalising the bookmaking industry, or at least that part of it that encompasses horse racing, would cost more than a pretty penny and now might not be the opportune moment to go down that route. But it should be discussed, if not actually costed.
The present flu outbreak and the restrictions used by government to bring the country to its knees is, I believe, a pivotal moment in our sport’s history, with the reduction in prize money almost an embarrassment. If you research the age of horse racing’s most celebrated owners, the relatively few who keep the ship upright, without exception they could be labelled as elderly. Perhaps they have siblings primed to continue the equine empires of their fathers but who is to say they will have into the future the same enthusiasm for the sport, the same willingness to lavish the same levels of money on the thoroughbred dynasties created by their forebears? Flat racing, in the main, is presently reinforced not so much by individuals but by actual countries – Dubai, Qatar, etc. Countries rich in oil, a commodity, especially for powering transport, soon to be made redundant by Ion Lithium batteries.
Horse racing in this country needs to find a more sustainable funding model and it has to be done not during the next few decades but in the next few years.
Tit should be remembered that this sport is a good little earner for government. It always has been. It is why we were the first sport given permission to restart after lockdown. I would be disappointed if the Department of Culture, Media and Sport was not sympathetic to the suggestion of financial help to establish a ‘Tote Monopoly’ to ensure the long-term sustainability of horse racing in this country. I am sure spare money, windfall monies, could be found on one of the money trees in the money orchard they have spectacularly cultivated recently.
I don’t know if I am again in a majority of one but I find it slightly humiliating when the sport, as is the case now with Epsom, has to go cap in hand to find sponsors for major races. Shouldn’t we be able to fund the sport through our own endeavours, especially when you take into account the billions that pass through various hands over the course of a calendar year? Also, on a connected point, it is rather obscene that the Epsom Derby has to worth 1.5-million just so that it can compete with the French and Irish Derbies, yet it is acceptable to run racing at the bottom rung of the sport with first prize-money of less than £3,000. As I have said many times, to build with strength you need solid foundations and our sport is built on sand. Every owner of a racehorse deserves an equal opportunity to make ends meet and this is one more reason why the B.H.A. has a responsibility to secure for the sport it is there to support a funding stream that will sustain and nurture and if the sacrifice for that certainty is goodbye to independent bookmakers then it is a small sacrifice to pay.

​It is John Gosden versus Aidan O’Brien on Saturday in Ascot’s King George & Queen Elizabeth Stakes. Just the two of them. No other trainer in Europe or Great Britain has seen fit to have a stab at this country’s most prestigious flat race for older horses. And it is older horses this year as there will be no representation of this season’s classic generation. It will still be a fascinating contest; how could it be otherwise with Frankie Dettori pitting his wits and race craft against the manoeuvres and team tactics of the Coolmore battalions. All six of them, apparently.
One of the O’Brien squad is sure to go off at a good lick, possibly Sovereign, tactics that proved right up his street in last season’s Irish Derby. Of course, Frankie will be wise to such a strategy, though whether he’ll be able to counteract it will be another matter. Magical and Japan maybe the main contenders for Coolmore but as with Serpentine at Epsom they’ll not mind if the pace-setter goes on to win. With Coolmore these days, any result is good as long as Coolmore win.
Incidentally, isn’t it fascinating to see an Epsom Derby winner having his next race in the Goodwood Cup, with the added sparkle of taking on Stradivarius. Again, Gosden v O’Brien.
Whatever spin you put on it, Ascot’s summer showpiece remains light years away in appeal and aspiration with owners and trainers in comparison to the Arc. At its inception it was undoubtedly a race of renown, one every jockey, trainer and owner wanted on their c.v. But no more, it seems. It’s not anyone’s fault. There are just too many similar races these days both at home, in Europe and around the world. Also, breeders now have a fascination with shorter distances, mirroring more and more the situation in the U.S. and elsewhere. I believe you could bump-up the prize money for the King George to in excess of the Arc and still, because of where it sits in the calendar, it will be bested by other races in England and abroad. It’s all about the stallion fee and less about the sport, sadly.
If Saturday follows the pattern of 2020, we could be in for another surprising result. I am an admirer of Japan but if I were to tip against Enable, which goes against the grain, doesn’t it, I would put forward Fanny Logan at a fancy price. 

Julian Muscat had a good old moan about ratings this morning in the Racing Post. Good for him. I had a good old moan about ratings after the ridiculous number received by Pinatubo at the end of last season. I said at the time that no horse should be given a public rating until it had run three times, with his rating being the average of the ratings achieved in those three outings, when the form of the other runners can also be assessed, and then be accessed publicly again after another two starts. This system should apply to all horses, not just the Group-type horses, thus allowing a trainer to choose to rest on a horse’ laurels rather than run it quickly before it is reassessed. 
Last week, in the letters page of the Racing Post, a reader gave his opinion that Sea The Stars was the horse of the century, better even, apparently than Frankel, who, in my opinion, would have blown him away over every distance from a mile to a mile-and-a-half, the latter I believe would have proved Frankel’s optimum trip.
I have little regard for ratings and care little what rating Sea The Stars finished his career on. He was without a shadow of a doubt the horse of his generation. The problem I have with Sea The Stars, as fine a racehorse and how great a stallion he has become, is that his generation was in the singular and that he was in effect a shooting star, not a jewel in the crown that can be attributed to Frankel and before him Brigadier Gerard.
Sea The Stars was a three-year-old. He achieved nothing as a two-year-old and was not kept in training as a four-year-old so we have no idea of his soundness and durability or if he were capable of giving weight to the best of the generation that followed him. Frankel and Brigadier Gerard were both highly rated two-year-olds, won the races expected of them as three-year-olds and stayed in training at four. Great horses beat other great horses even when disadvantaged by weight, ground or distance. Brigadier Gerard, for example, beat Mill Reef, the only truly great horse any one of the three defeated.
Returning to Pinatubo: if given the opportunity, which might be doubtful, he could yet live up to his ridiculous two-year-old rating but not if he is campaigned at the in-between distance of seven-furlongs. They need to be brave and pitch him in against Siskin and Kameko in the Sussex Stakes. What have they got to lose? He’ll always have his two-year-old rating to fall back on when it comes to selling his potential as a stallion to breeders.
It amazes me that no one looks to Mark Johnston, the winning-most trainer in the history of our sport, for inspiration. Or even Aidan O’Brien. Defeat is not the end of the world to them if something is learned that will lead to a better result next time. Racehorses are bred to race; it is what is so admirable about Coolmore and Mark Johnston. Pinatubo is a racehorse, if they ran him regularly, he might actually learn to settle in his races and, who knows, he might win the races as a four-year-old that will earn him a similar rating to the ridiculous rating he currently must live up to. Ratings are opinion, nothing more; and too unreliable to be regarded as scientific. 

​My life is enhanced by the presence of the Racing Post. When publication was suspended due to the Bill Gates sponsored Global Health Emergency there was a media hole in my life that no other newspaper could fill. When I die one of my funeral stipulations will be to have that day’s copy of the paper under my head as part of my grave goods. I rely on the Racing Post to be there every morning; I want it to survive; I will it to thrive. I wish it were cheaper to buy, though.
So, when I send e-mails or the occasional letter to its editor, I try very hard not to be critical, to either put across an alternative viewpoint or an idea that might be useful. Last week I sent an e-mail to Tom Lee, the paper’s new and still youthful editor. But as with his predecessor, Bruce Millington, I did not receive a reply.
I wrote to ask if he could put a stop to his columnists referencing the Cheltenham Festival and the spread of the Covid virus which in relation to the Leicester lockdown was happening too often for my liking. I pointed out to Mr. Lee that two studies, one conducted in Ireland and another in the local area, concluded that the Cheltenham Festival had very little impact on the spread of infection and in not referencing either of these scientific studies his columnists were shooting racing in the foot, so to speak. I did not add, though I should have done so, that horse racing does not have to apologise for taking place as the government gave us priority over other sports as they were mighty keen for the betting duty we provide to the exchequer. 
I made two other points, though I acknowledged that his hands are doubtless tied due to the contract between the government and the media, forbidding them not to rock the boat, to question the official narrative in any meaningful way. But with racing’s finances being squeezed all ends up, I thought it would be pertinent if one of his columnists asked this question – if masks have integrity, why the need for social distancing, and if there is integrity in social distancing, why the need for masks? This belt and braces approach to virus control is only being enacted, it seems to me, when it comes to racing. In football, for example, the players do not wear masks and come into contact with each other minute by minute, with some of the coaching staff wearing masks and others not, with intermingling as prevalent as back in the good old days when flu epidemics were dealt with by simply treating the sick and leaving the healthy to get on with their lives. In the centre of Newmarket Heath, it seems incongruous, or damn ridiculous, to witness jockeys, stall-holders and racecourse staff, protecting themselves against the unseen viral enemy by wearing a face-mask, when surrounded for miles upon miles by clean, fresh, invigorating air. I just thought one of the Post’s columnists might just mention it.
I also wrote, and this perhaps was criticism, that horse racing can ill-afford the loss of its greatest revenue provider. I complained at the time that the B.H.A. abandoned the 2020 Grand National as if in doing so they were dodging a bullet. At the time of the abandonment, there were still eight-months of the year in which to reschedule the race. They moved mountains to ensure the classics were run, as well as Royal Ascot and the Eclipse, yet they could not bring themselves to announce that they would move a small hill to get the Grand National run in 2020.
I said at the time that I understood the Grand National could not be run in April, though I proposed the race could take place at either Aintree’s October or November meeting. I realise that a) if the race was rescheduled for either of these dates it would mean the 2020 Grand National would be run outside of the 2019/20 season and that b) it would mean two Grand Nationals in a six-month time period. Logistically this might be quite demanding for both the organisers and the sponsors, what with everything that must come together to stage the world’s most famous horse race, but I would argue that at this critical moment in our sport’s history, with its very future being questioned by some people, the revenue from two Grand Nationals in six-months is exactly what the sport requires. And anyway, two Grand Nationals in a calendar year might make up for all those years when we had no Grand National, a fate not to befall the Epsom Derby and Royal Ascot, at least not in my lifetime.
Again, I thought someone on the Racing Post staff might be on the same wave-length, someone who could at least start a debate amongst the Post’s readership.
It is my belief, and the B.H.A.’s differing response to saving/cancelling the Grand National, the Derby and Royal Ascot, drives home the truth of their position on the two codes of the sport – flat racing is more important, even if in general it is less popular with racing’s audience.

​Although I am loathed to admit to it, the Bill Gates’ sponsored Plandemic has allowed for a few good things to happen in the parochial world of British horse racing. Jockeys only being allowed to ride at one meeting per day is an excellent step-forward in the drive to improve the mental health of jockeys. I doubt if tubbies like you and me can ever understand the strain inflicted on jockeys when they have to diet every day of their lives, get out of bed at the crack of dawn to ride work for a trainer, then drive to an afternoon race meeting, before setting off on another long car journey to an evening meeting, no doubt arriving home in what we tritely refer to as ‘the wee small hours’. I dare say when the first race is mid-day it imposes a different type of problem for jockeys but at least come the final race their next car journey will be homeward-bound.
And the main benefit of the present system is that, as I have said for many years now, it gives greater opportunity for those jockeys who do not dine off the high table. If the B.H.A. have any sense, they will not meddle with the one-meeting per-day rule.
The nine and ten race programme is also a neat idea, though whether it will survive this madcap period in our lives is questionable, even if jockeys heartily approve of extended race-cards. To catch up on races missed during the weeks and months of the nonsensical lockdown, the extended race-cards are sensible and if they did extend into the later part of the season would provide greater value for money for spectators. (Crossed fingers) The downside, of course, to the nine and ten-race meetings is that the B.H.A. might decide they are a better alternative to keeping the smaller tracks alive. Which is a scenario in keeping with our dystopian times. A wretched thought, I hope you agree.

I wrote many moons ago (Thought to self: I must sort out the archive of this website. It is a mess. Even I cannot find the files related to what I write at the present time. Titles, also.) that Barry Geraghty was one of the greatest of all time and should be revered alongside Ruby Walsh and A.P. McCoy. I have predicted his retirement several times over the past few years, yet when it came this weekend it was still a bit of a shock. As with the above-mentioned twosome, it will be strange not to see his name slated against J.P.’s horses in the weeks and months to come.
Who will replace him as J.P.’s retained rider? It is a slam dunk that Mark Walsh will become his number 1 in Ireland, though I suspect a younger jockey will get the job in England.
I think Jonjo O’Neill junior is perhaps lacking in experience to be number 1 at present but in time he’ll doubtless rise to the job. Aidan Coleman is an obvious choice and J.P. usually prefers more experienced jockeys. Richard Johnson does not have enough mileage left in him to be considered and I am sure he will want to finish his career with the Hobbs yard. And the age consideration applies to Davy Russell. My bet, for what it is worth, and somebody unconsidered by bookies and pundits alike, is Harry Cobden. He is the best of the younger brigade around, has already won his fair share of big prizes, is not phased by expectation and has an easy-going attitude to life. Whether Paul Nicholls would let him go without a fight, I am not so sure. He is, after-all, the best stable jockey he has had since Ruby Walsh.

Sport without spectators is like the London Eye during a power-cut. Yes, it has taken a herculean effort to get the Derby and Royal Ascot staged, and a huge round of applause goes out to those responsible, and how about erecting 3-miles of metal fencing around the perimeter of York racecourse? Where do you get your hands on 3-miles of fencing? Triumph, though, should be equalled by a buzz of electricity, not the echoing of individual hand-claps, mostly from the splendid I.T.V. crew. The government needs the revenue from betting, especially with the economy showing no sign of perking up any day soon, and the B.H.A. should use this as a bargaining tool to get race-goers back on the racecourse, even if the stupid and utterly pointless masks must be worn. Incidentally, am I the only one to think it inconsistent, if this Covid-bug is such a killer, that jockeys and trainers must wear a mask, yet the I.T.V. presenters do not?
Covid-19 – A disease so deadly you have to be tested to determine if you have had it or not.

​Of course, nothing truly matters. The health of your family may matter 100% to you but to the vast majority in the world other peoples’ families hardly matters at all. When you take every aspect of life into account, we are all on a one-way journey to whatever lies beyond the grave. In 1914 young men left their villages to volunteer to help save our great country from the tyranny of our arch enemy. Their sacrifice and courage did matter then, and perhaps I am being cynical as their bravery helped stem the tide of evil, allowing us to live the lives we do today, but in 2020 their suffering in the trenches and amidst the mustard gas is now but a page in the history books.
So, when I say horse racing is virtually the only reason I plod on in this life, you may shake your head and take the same cynical approach to me as I do to the 1st World War and to very much everything else in life. But horse racing does matter to me and the name of this website does not refer to, necessarily, matters relating to horse racing, but to horse racing having a meaningful role in the hi-tech, A.I. world in which we try to live out our lives.
You see if you believe the 1st World War does matter and will matter all down through the decades and centuries to come, then horses should concern you too, as if it was not for their sacrifice and willingness to serve, the war might not have been won, indeed it might have proved more bloody than it already was. In 1914 the army did not have much in the way of mechanical pulling power and it was the horse that pulled all the heavy artillery into position. Some of the horses running today may have antecedents amongst that equine number as thoroughbreds as well as plough horses were commandeered for war work. We owe horses a debt that perhaps will never be repaid, no matter how well we treat them in our time here on Earth.
Horses and horse racing matters to society, too, though the appreciation will be hard to find. Once upon a time the economic prosperity of the country was held fast by animals working alongside man. Nowadays all that has changed with only police and guide and assistance dogs the equal of the racehorses that work alongside the men and women who look after and ride them. When we watch a horse race, we witness a spectacle hardly changed for near on two-hundred-years. Owners betting on their horses to win, jockeys trying their darndest to win, trainers and staff praying for a good and safe outcome. Horse racing has ridden in tandem over the decades with the history of our country.
Horse racing also matters economically, especially to government, as betting duty swells the coffers of the exchequer and helps pay for the upkeep of our roads, hospitals and schools. Let’s not fool ourselves, the duty from betting was the reason horse racing was the first sport to take place after lockdown. It is why rails bookmakers and spectators will return to racecourses on the same day, be that at Goodwood or somewhere less bright and shiny.
Horse racing also matters because it provides a demonstration of humans placing another species, if not on pedestals or above us, at the very least on equal terms. Thanks in part to Bryony Frost, jockeys are now less afraid to display their emotional attachment to their mounts at the end of a race, a breaking down of professional neutrality that is most welcome. The horse is our foremost attraction. People outside of the world avoid this truth when they criticise the sport, that the number one element is not the trainer, jockey or owner but the horse. When the question is asked ‘who won the 2019 Grand National?’ the answer is never Gordon Elliot or Davy Russell but Tiger Roll. In the roll-call of classic races the first name you see is the name of the horse. The horse is king, or queen, the lesser runners princes and princesses, which is why when tragedy strikes the tears that roll down the cheek are real, not the crocodile tears of a dropped catch or missed penalty.
Horse racing matters because it teaches us to be generous in defeat as on any one card there can only be a small percentage of winners. If you can’t take defeat on the chin and be better for the experience you might as well play golf or stick to rose growing. Horse racing, indeed the horses himself, has a propensity to kick the both the wary and unwary in the teeth, the crutch and anywhere else that is tender and open to breakage. It is why wins, big or small, are celebrated as you never know when the next one will come along.
Horse racing also matters because in the midst of battle there is beauty, the beauty of the horse, the courage of the horse and jockey, the steadfastness and stockman’s eye of the workaholic trainer, the eternal hope and deep pockets of the owner, the love and dedication of grooms. 
Horse racing matters because it brings together all aspects of society. In the winners’ enclosure or on a stable visit royalty will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with someone born on a council housing estate, if not exactly equals, respectfully acknowledged as part of the same endeavour, in a more peaceful way but similar to the days when ordinary men followed in train to do the bidding of their king or queen in battle. Monarchs did not win battles as the history book might like us to think, it was the spilt blood of loyal supporters of the monarch who gave them victory.
If you are an outsider to our sport and judge us as people who use horses for our own selfish entertainment, you are mistaken. Horses matter. Horse racing matters. This sport is pure working class underpinned by the wealthy, the elite, the dreamers who work all the hours God-sends to breed or train a horse that might one day grace Royal Ascot or Cheltenham. But not the privileged. Everyone involved in horse racing are the privileged, privileged to spend their days alongside the most beautiful and giving animal on the planet. Where would any of us be without horse racing? Where would the horse be without racing? Horse racing matters, make no mistake.

​Without anyone coming out and saying it openly, in the racing community there seems a sense that the B.H.A. are not doing enough to protect the future of our sport. Yes, at this present moment, with the world turned inside out by a plandemic that is the scourge of all humankind, it is a difficult task for anyone to concentrate on what is to come, so distracting is the nonsense that prevails. Yet, as with their forerunners, the Jockey Club, the B.H.A. lack vision, and are too easily led by crackpot ideas whose inventors tout as a kind of rainbow of funding if only others would not insist on pointing out the pitfalls. I refer, of course, to the mad-on-the-face-of-it City Street Racing and the equally madcap Team racing concept.
Understandably, prize money has taken a hit just lately, though I think half-a-million for the Derby winner should be enough considering the stallion fees that will come along as soon as Serpentine, to take this year’s winner as an example, is retired to the stallion barn. The B.H.A. has, seemingly, pushed for larger and larger purses for some of our main races, including handicaps, believing, no doubt, the public’s imagination might be caught by seven-figure prize funds. But that is not where any strategy for growing the sport should be centralised. What is required for long-term growth is strong and sustainable roots; any organisation can only grow and develop from strength at its foundations and in racing that is where the majority of horses and small-time owners operate.
What owners require to keep them within the sport is hope. Racing offers the hope of reward to everyone who participates in the sport be they jockeys, trainers, owners, stable staff. It is why instead of investing six-figure amounts of money in the classics etc, if that money is around it should be invested, in the first instance, in the lower echelon of the sport, at Beverley, Hereford, Nottingham, Newton Abbot etc. The day-to-day fare, the racing that keeps the sport ticking.
For many years now both codes of the sport have become increasingly dominated by a smaller and smaller band of owner and breeder: too much of the pie has gone into the mouths of fewer and fewer people. I am not criticising Godolphin, Qatar, Coolmore, J.P.McManus, Giggingstown etc, they are in many ways the lifeblood of the sport. And, perhaps, though the names are different it has always been the same, the rich and powerful owning the best stallions and mares and employing the best trainers and staff. It’s just that in this modern age, even point-to-points can be dominated by the rich and powerful. The small owner/breeder, seemingly, is being squeezed out of the sport.
Do you remember the day when a permit trainer could train the winner of the Grand National? Think, Grittar. Nowadays permit trainers hardly exist and rarely do they pop up with a runner in a major race. Think, Norton’s Coin. This is where the sport becomes interesting to the general public, when the little man has one over the big brigades.
Of course, syndicates are today’s ‘little men’, and God love them for the variety they bring, but there is even a hierarchy within the world of syndicates, though each and ever one should be applauded and encouraged for bringing fresh blood to the sport.
I have said for years that jockeys should only ride at one meeting a day and as is being proved at the moment this is proving good news to most jockeys, providing, as it does, more opportunity for those jockeys who in other seasons would have to stand aside for a more senior jockey who doubtless needs the fee and winning percentage far less than they do. If this system continues the sport will be far healthier for it.
The same benefit would be felt if a certain number of races a day were restricted to owner/bred horses, horses that cost less than, say, ten-grand as a yearling, for trainers with less than, again say, twenty-five horses in training, more sellers, more maidens for older horses on the flat and over jumps. Cater for the lesser lights so as to offer hope to all of racing’s participants. Over the past few decades, the sport has catered far too much for those who have it all. We should always celebrate the winners of classics, flat and jumps, as well as the big festival meetings, the big spenders, the international owner/breeder, the owner with hundreds of horses in training, provide the apex for the lower reaches to aim at. But equally, perhaps more vitally, this sport above all others, a sport that unites every class in society, must have good strong roots and they are not provided by any of the above but by the man with one mare breeding on a very modest scale, by those with two or three mares who work all the hours to afford to keep those mares and who dream of one day making it (financially) big in the sport.
Something else though goes hand-in-hand with any initiative: horse welfare and how the public perceive our attitudes to the topic. Without public acceptance that we care in all instances in the welfare of the horse, and from birth to death, not just when the horse is racing, no initiative will be worth a heap of beans. To my mind the whip issue has gone on long enough and should be speedily resolved. I have advocated a season-long trial of what I will refer to as ‘whipless races’, with an escalating number of races per day restricted to either one or no hits. If we do not volunteer to go down this road, government, using animal rights legislation, will enforce it upon us whether we care for it or not, and the general public will applaud. 
We really must grow this sport from the foundation up.

​Of course, I speak of the days before the advent of female jockeys. Nothing compares to a Hayley, Josephine, Nicola, Megan etc, underdogs proving that females, when given equal opportunities, are the match for their male counterparts, as Hollie Doyle proves on a daily basis.
But in a time when professional female jockeys were as outlandish a consideration as Bill Gates sponsored flu pandemics, I thought Joe Mercer to be par-exellence, without equal, an example as to how all youngsters should race-ride.
He rode, of course, Brigadier Gerard in all his races, including when undoubtedly not fit enough to do so in the Prince of Wales’ Stakes at Royal Ascot, as similar to what happened to Frankie Dettori many years later, Joe was involved in a plane crash at Newbury racecourse. As with Frankie’s accident, the pilot was killed, although on this occasion it was Joe who returned to the plane to rescue his fellow passengers.
Joe rode 2,810 winners during his career, was champion jockey during his time with Henry Cecil, yet he was not a jockey consumed by a need to prove himself, it was, at least it seemed to me, never a case of win at all costs. He was not a whip jockey or bounce in the saddle rider. He was stylish, classically so, sparing of the stick. He endeared himself to me after ‘the race of the century’ when finishing second on Bustino to Pat Eddery on Grundy, a race that to all extent and purposes finished the careers of both horses. When it was put to him that he had not used his whip on Bustino, he said something along the lines of. ‘Why, he was going as fast as he could. Hitting him would not have made him run faster’. I believe Joe was also quoted as saying that if a horse doesn’t quicken for one crack of the whip, he sure wouldn’t for two, three or four.
As with many great jockeys, the Derby was never his lucky race. In fact after winning the Oaks in 1953 on Ambiguity for Jack Colling, he had to wait until 1965 before he was successful again in a classic, winning the 1965 St.Leger on Provoke, a race he went on to win three more times. He also won the 1,000 Guineas twice, firstly in 1974 on the Queen’s Highclere and the 2,000 Guineas on the immortal Brigadier Gerard, the only flat horse of my lifetime who conceivably might have been better than Frankel.
In his career Joe was fortunate to ride some of the great Cup horses, Grey of Falloden, an old favourite of mine who was not, as his name suggested, a grey, Buckskin, Le Moss and High Line. He also won the Ascot Gold Cup on Parbury. I have always held the opinion that the great stayers needed thinking jockeys on them, not simply the stylish jockey, the whip-happy sort. Staying races can be won in the first quarter-mile, with preservation of stamina far more necessary for winning than any amount of effort in the final furlong. Apart from his two Ascot Gold Cups, Joe won the Doncaster Cup eight-times, the Goodwood Cup twice and the Jockey Club Cup five-times.
It was a shock to the system when the Sporting Life announced on its front page that Joe had been arrested in India for attempting to smuggle diamonds out of he country and just as surprising to read in Richard Baerlein’s biography of him that through naivety he was indeed guilty of the offence and spent many weeks in an Indian prison for the crime. It shows how easy it can be for the unwary to fall foul of overseas laws when you become too comfortable living and working in a foreign country. It put a stop to his routine of riding in India during the winter.
During his long career – he rode his first winner in 1950 and his last in 1985 – he was stable jockey to Jack Colling, Dick Hern, Henry Cecil and Peter Walwyn, four of the most successful trainers in racing history, which is all you the evidence required to have him rated as one of the greatest jockeys of all time.

​The Epsom Derby this year was undoubtedly the best, by far, during my lifetime. I accept the purist amongst you would prefer to witness the dawning of a new superstar colt, a Nijinsky or Nashwan, horses that win on the bridle or with overwhelming dominance, and then there are Derbies, as it was last season, when four horses flash past the finishing post in near unison. But for me a great Derby gives us a story that excites, or at the very least engages, viewers and spectators who do not ordinarily watch or follow horse racing. On Saturday Serpentine and Emmet McNamara gave us exactly that.
At this moment in the season, it matters not one jot whether Serpentine will go on to prove a poor, average or outstanding Derby winner. It may be that the fifteen beaten horses might win only a handful of races between them during their careers and Serpentine will be disparaged because of their failings. We do not know the future. We do not know, for instance, whether Mogul, English King or Russian Emperor sustained an injury during the race. The fact is this: Serpentine was a spectacular pillar to post winner, beating his rivals by 5 & ½-lengths and more. His sectional time in the last furlong may have been slower than most of his rivals but his overall time for the race was still faster than the rest of them. My initial reaction, which remains, is that Serpentine is a top-class colt who can only get better over time.
Whether Emmet McNamara rode his colleagues to sleep or all fifteen of them are guilty of riding an injudicious race is only a sideshow to the main narrative, in my opinion. Padraig Beggy, for instance, who rode my fancy for the race Vatican City, would have been instructed to ride his horse with the notion that he might not fully stay the Derby distance and was to come to win his race in the final furlong. If he had tried to cut down his stable-companion’s lead at the halfway point or at the entrance to the home straight, say, I am sure Aidan would have taken him to one side and, given that the genius does not lose his temper, left him there to ponder the error of his ways.
To my mind, Derby trials should be run over the Derby distance. The next expert or trainer to roll-out the ‘Guineas is the best Derby trial’ when asked to give insight to the betting public should be made to accompany Matt Chapman for a week or muck-out a dozen stable for a similar length of time. The 2,000 Guineas is over a mile, the Derby 4-furlongs further. It is like saying the Ryanair is the best trial for the Grand National.
This season is unique, and hopefully will remain so in history. But surely hanging a horse’s season on the Derby without knowing for certain if the horse gets the Derby distance is plainly lacking sense. A horse might run in the Grand National and prove ineffectual over 4-miles-plus but he will have the whole of the summer to get over his exertions. A Derby horse will be in training for the rest of the summer and the whole of Autumn. It is why the Derby should be run on the first Saturday of July and not the first Saturday in June to allow for more races for 3-year-olds over the Derby trip. If it were the latter this year, Serpentine would almost certainly not have run this year.
Another thing, and I am not suggesting Kameko will not prove effective over shorter distances, but if he didn’t stay the Derby distance, I can only suggest that he stayed it better than the twelve that finished behind him. It would be more truthful of Andrew Balding to say that to protect his stallion value it makes sense to run him over shorter distances. Kameko would win many a race over 1-mile & ½ - they just wouldn’t be the type of race to bolster his appeal as a stallion.
I said after the 1,000 Guineas that Love would win the Oaks and she did. I hope ‘the boys’ take her to the St.Leger to try to win the  fillies Triple Crown. It is not as if they do not have other horses to aim for the Arc – Japan, Magical, Anthony Van Dyk, Serpentine, to name but four.
 

​Shock, horror! Leicester races went ahead despite being given permission to do so by the Department of Health and Leicester health officials!
I thought the craze for virtue signalling had ended. But no, it remains, lurking in the shadows.
We had all this in the aftermath of the Cheltenham Festival. The hand-ringing and accusations. Yet in retrospect what was the fuss then and what is the fuss about now. Millions of people passed through Gatwick and Heathrow, allowed to go unchecked onto public transport, to take whatever bugs or viruses they carried to all destinations across the country. Even now, adding to a lack of sense that has become the ‘New Normal, people arrive at our airports and even though they must self-isolate are allowed to travel on public transport, to take whatever bugs and viruses they have accumulated on their travels and go live for fourteen-days alongside family members free to come and go as they please. Oh, in case it passed you by, studies conducted in Ireland and Gloucestershire concluded the Cheltenham Festival contributed virtually nothing in the spread of infection. And how many thousand of people attended the four-days? 
Yet one race-meeting held on the outskirts of Leicester where there is quite a minor increase in Covid disease – by the way, are these people actually sick, hospitalised, on ventilators or simply displaying symptoms of a cold? – racing must be dragged over the coals with some of its big players suggesting the sport has committed an own goal.
Yes, in the great scheme of things calling off the meeting would have been no big deal but if that were the path they had chosen to tread, wouldn’t that be setting a precedent. What if there is a spike in cases in the Surry area during the next two days – will the sport have its back to the wall, with no alternative but to cancel the Derby and Oaks? Or, Mr.King (and others) is this a case of one law for the rich and one for the lesser lights?
I thought stalls handlers were tough cookies, brave men and women who go where lesser mortals could never bring themselves to go. Seems not. The stalls handlers who chose to bunk off last night should really be ashamed of themselves. They really need to go do some research on this terrible bug that is wiping out all of humanity, apparently. As the W.H.O. counselled at the very start of this Plandemic, as the Prime Minister advised and Chris Whitty agreed with, only a very small proportion of the population will be seriously compromised by Covid-19. Anyone with a healthy immune system has little to fear from what is at the end of the day little more than a flu outbreak, and even if you catch a dose of the virus the odds are very much in your favour of only going down with very mild symptoms, a fact both the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer subscribed to on many occasions, though more likely you will experience no symptoms at all.
It is time those employed in the racing industry strapped a pair on, looked Covid-19 in the eye and stopped adhering to protocols that are no more than government propaganda. I could give links to a myriad number of science and medical publications that make no bones about the ineffectiveness of masks warding off the virus. As I said when racing restarted, jockeys wearing masks during races will very likely cause harm to them. Footballers were not compelled to wear masks, yet jockeys were. At least medical common-sense prevailed.
The stalls handlers and trainers who took it upon themselves to criticise the sport that pays their wages need to look up the facts about what is going on at present. Covid-19 is a serious health issue to people who live day-by-day with a morbidity or more than one morbidity. But to those of us who are healthy, especially the young, it is no worse than any seasonal influenza bug. The facts around the world confirm this startling fact. The only reason there will be a spike in numbers, and this was predicted by experts at the start of lockdown, is because people kept in isolation will suffer suppression of their immune system and once released from confinement they will be more susceptible to contracting any bug or virus that is about.
The racing industry comprises some of the healthiest people in the country. Yes, it would be wise for any owner (or trainer) with underlying health conditions not to attend race meetings or indeed any large social gathering but for the rest of us it does not represent any sort of threat.
Go racing, be happy, put the fear behind you and for heaven sake, assign virtue signalling to the annals of history.