​As anyone who has read any of the pieces on this site will be aware, I believe the names given to horses should be respectful, literate and in no way silly or vulgar. The name of a racehorse might be the first port of call for anyone new to the sport. On the rare occasion the finish of a horse race – usually the Grand National, Cheltenham Gold Cup or Epsom Derby – appears on the national news, it is the name of the winning horse that comes before the name of the jockey, trainer or owner, except if the horse is owned by the Queen. Of course, no name Her Majesty has ever given to one of her horses has been anything less than charming and respectful, with many plain downright clever.
I have nothing but loathing for anyone who uses the name of a famous racehorse not protected by having won a classic or Grand National etc. If, for example, the name Spanish Steps if ever appears on a race-card again, I will hunt down the owner responsible and assault him/her with a cucumber or radish. Coolmore naming a lesser equine being after the great horse was the final straw for me; Sue Magnier, if it were she, she normally names the Coolmore youngsters, let herself down badly on that occasion. In fact, she let down all her forebears back to the time of Queen Anne.
Because of Sue Magnier, I have acquired an addiction that is proving as difficult to defeat as a druggie going a day with heroin, cocaine or glue. On this site there is a page dedicated to possible names for racehorses. I see potential names everywhere –the internet, newspapers, headlines, street and house names, history books, books on cloud formations and gemstones – it goes on. This is perhaps the reason I found David Ashforth’s ‘Fifty Shades of Hay’ such a joy to read. The names of racehorses, as I have said many times, are the key to memories of great races past. The names of racehorses are part and parcel of the history of this sport, the race-by-race building block to the day’s events, the form book, the racing history books. And David Ashforth, through thorough research, also educates the reader with the stories, if there be stories, of why a horse was named as he was.
Rupert of Hentzou, for example, was the dashing villain in ‘The Prisoner of Zenda’. If you cannot remember the opening verse to ‘Champion the Wonder Horse’ look no further than the opening chapter of this book. If you want a short pen sketch of all the horses given the name ‘Stiff Dick’ page 160 should be your destination.
The last name in the book is ‘It’s Over’ – the author is clever like that – won four races in Ireland. And to prove how clever Mr.Ashforth is in the ‘further reading section’ it is suggested that if you enjoyed ‘Fifty Shades of Hay’ you might like to seek out ‘The Urban Poor Law’, ‘The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century’ and ‘Records of Achievements in the Market Place’, scholarly books I would seek out if only to determine if his prose is as urbane and witty as when he has his racing hat on. He has written other books, apparently, but they are about horse racing and are not worth mentioning.
David Ashforth has suffered much illness and health scares in the latter years of his life, his troubles often documented in his now, sadly, occasional columns for the Racing Post, with his annual attempt at Christmas to win money for charitable causes through his exploits as tipster and small-scale gambler as good a deterrent to anyone foolish enough to believe the modern-day bookmaker is a foe easily taken down. Ashforth sometimes wins, though often he loses and his readers feel his pain as we all love a plucky underdog giving it a jolly good go.
This book should be on the shelves of anyone fortunate enough to be in a position where they have the honour to name a racehorse. It is something I long to do but never shall. It is a responsibility naming a racehorse, especially if it is bred in the purple and might highlight his owner’s life by winning a classic horse race. The English language is broad and ever-expanding; possible names are endless even with all the names the B.H.A.’s have placed on its protected and barred list. You will not be allowed ‘Battleship’, for instance, but you can translate into French, German, Italian, or any language of your choice. You could, if you keep to the 18 characters, have a horse called ‘Persian Punch’ if you find the Persian word for Persian and the Persian word for Punch. Or Golden Miller, Monksfield or Red Rum.
With imagination it is easier to name a horse than you or the B.H.A. believe.
My copy, which I bought from Ways of Newmarket, came with cut-outs from the Racing Post of reviews of ‘Fifty Shades of Hay’, which on the reverse side had two photos of Bryony Frost, a rider and young lady this old bloke adores and admires. It might have influenced my opinion of this book. It didn’t.

​Since the year dot, and for millions of years before year dot came into existence, the Earth’s climate has altered and changed. It is only a matter of hundreds of years ago the deserts of Africa were not deserts but an expanse of vegetation, with thriving cultures, as evidenced by the many spectacular structures that can be seen when the wind changes direction to expose what lies beneath the sand. There are obvious signs of rain weathering, for instance, on the Sphinx, more evidence that 10,000 years ago the Giza Plateau was not a desert environment. And there is also evidence that the Arctic once was inhabited by animals that could not survive there now, with ancient maps showing an ice-free continent, with forests and flowing rivers.
That is not to suggest the climate is not changing more rapidly now than in the past, with humans helping though not necessarily driving change, proof that the Earth’s weather is forever evolving. In the 1700’s it was expected that during the winter the Thames in places would freeze over, allowing frost festivals to become part of the winter landscape.
And, of course, anecdotally any of us of a certain age can remember summers and winters of our youth that were wetter, colder, snowier and less dramatic than the seasons of today. Though I am minded to recall a passage from Jerome K Jerome’s ‘Three Men In A Boat’ where one of his relatives recalled the idyllic weather of his youth and comparing it to the awful weather he was living through as an old man.
Yes, the weather at present is changing, the summer’s are, on occasion, hotter -is that necessarily a bad thing? – with the winters definitely less snowy, with rainfall less predictable, though, again, for horse racing is that necessarily a bad thing?
But as far as our sport is concerned it must be remembered that our racecourses are equipped with drainage systems that were not present before quite recent times, with racecourses irrigated, except for poor old Bath, whenever clerks of the courses want to remove ‘firm’ from the going conditions. There are also a multitude of more race-meetings in this country than at any time in the sport’s history, with all-weather (a misnomer if ever there was one) racing adding to the overload of meetings and the increasing problem of small-fields, a situation that those debating the latter problem always fail to acknowledge when comparing years gone by and today.
As with covid and vaccination when the media, including, sadly, the Racing Post, were instructed by government to ‘keep to the narrative’ and include no dissent from employees or readers, the narrative around climate change must be adhered to and not challenged. This why the world’s media are not covering the unrest in Sri Lanka, unrest brought about by laws that made it illegal for farmers to use pesticides and fertilisers, leading to wholesale failure of the tea harvest, a turn of events that will affect every tea-drinking country in the world. There are also protests all around Europe, especially Holland, relating to similar climate change legislation that allows governments to sequester farm-land that is farmed using pesticides and fertiliser.
Racecourse must, of course, be managed pro-actively, with more than one eye on the future. Unless Bath racecourse can irrigate through the summer, I cannot see it surviving, unless, and I must admit I have never visited the racecourse, though I know it is on top of a hill, it can become a National Hunt course, to take advantage of nature’s winter abundance of moisture. 
Every racecourse, unless, as with Worcester and Huntingdon, a river runs close by, should have either a reservoir or bole-hole. Racecourses that are flat dominant and are prone to firm ground in summer should race in the Spring and Autumn, with flat turf racing permitted during the winter months. Flexibility is key, I think, with blue-sky thinking and thinking-outside-of-the-box replacing tradition when it comes to the race calendar.
Those criticising the summer jumps programme seem deliberately to ignore the expansion of the race program, with the original construct of summer jumping, that it is to provide income for trainers all-year round, being thrown into the undergrowth. As with the all-weather and flat, there are simply too many jumps meetings in the summer months. Cut the program by a third and the problem is far less of a problem.
There is a saying that ‘you cannot change the weather’, well they can and they do, with cloud seeding a reality for decades and part of the arsenal of war. That, by the way, is fact, not conspiracy theory. We must live with whatever weather nature throws at us. Excessive heat, a real concern when the horse is pivotal, would easily be better managed if, as happens in France, for instance (a country where betting companies have no sway) where they regularly race mid-morning onwards. You might suggest at that time of the day there would be few spectators but if we debating the uncertainty of the future then the proposed Universal Credit System and the take-over of jobs from humans to I.T. and robotics should not ignored; an ugly prospect which, though, will ensure there will be multitude of people in search of something do at all hours of the day, including the morning.
Preparation for the future is key, with experimentation now a matter of emergency as the B.H.A. is notorious for fiddling rather than being pro-active. Alterations to the race program should be instigated as a matter of course, with morning meetings introduced to assess their suitability and viability. Throughout its history, horse racing has lived on the cusp of change. It began with match races between two wealthy people in a challenge to see who had the fastest horse; first in a rural location away from watching eyes, to soon become organised events on heathland, with the public thinking it a great spectacle. Horse racing today is much altered to the middle of the last century, betting has changed, jockey styles have changed, ownership has changed. Horse racing will cope with climate change but only if the sport’s administrators take the possible problems in the future seriously today and plan accordingly.

​This morning I e-mailed President Beckett of the Trainers’ Federation to suggest to him that owners and trainers are in the best position to facilitate change to the race calendar. The boycott of the Newbury race on Saturday was necessary if only to spark the debate that has followed. If the sport had decisive leadership, of course – on this issue the B.H.A. fiddles around with the authority of a learner driver waiting for his mother to summon the courage to give him his first lesson – Group 1 racecourses would not be allowed to stage any race below a value of £10,000, say. It is a damning indictment of prize-money levels at our major racecourses that Chester, Chelmsford and Cartmel can often stage races of greater value than a meeting with Group races on the card. 
I have proposed to Ralph Beckett, who perhaps might not take kindly to me e-mailling my two-pennies worth to him, that the Trainers’ Federation should go further, should take the fight to both the R.C.A (Racecourse Association) and the B.H.A. by sitting down and drawing up a list of 300-races, one race per day over a period of 300-days, to boycott, thus reducing the race-calendar by the number the B.H.A. first proposed. I wouldn’t though make the protest a mirror-image of the Newbury boycott as I would suggest one horse being declared per race, with trainers taking it in turn, so that the prize-money goes to where it is most needed, owners and trainers and does not remain in the coffers of the racecourse.
I doubt very much if Mr.Beckett will put my proposal to his members, especially at this very busy part of the season but, as I asked him, how much is enough? Someone or one of racing stakeholders has to grasp the mettle and put their heads above the parapet or the precipice from which there is no way back will reach us at a point when it will be too late to prevent calamity. 
In today’s Racing Post Caroline Bailey announced she is to retire from training and at the other end of the age spectrum Amy Murphy in an interview has said she is seriously considering transferring to France in order to gobble-up the enhanced prize-money over there. And just not at Longchamp or Chantilly but in the provinces as well.
I have not bought a copy of ‘Horses in Training’ since 2018. A quick browse of the first pages is a clear indication that in the garden of horse racing is far from rosy. David Arbuthnot, Alan Bailey, John Balding, Jack Barber, James Bethell, all have retired in the interim, in the latter case to hand over to his son. To be fair, I am sure many more have taken the plunge and taken out trainers’ licences since 2018 yet my point remains valid. People of long experience are quitting because they cannot make the job pay. Perhaps it has always been so, the cream rising to the top and the less successful, less resourceful, falling by the wayside.
I do not believe the sport is at a crossroads. Sadly, worryingly, I believe the sport has left the crossroads behind and directed by the B.H.A. and a misfunctioning Sat-Nav voiced by the Racecourse Association, we are now speeding towards either a dead-end or a cliff-top. A leader needs to emerge to lead the resistance, to demonstrate a better way. President Beckett might be that leader, the Trainers’ Federation an army of direct action, removing by subtle force 300-races and then moving the debate on to the more difficult and more vital issue of prize-money.
One final thought: did anyone miss that boycotted race on Saturday? You wouldn’t, would you? It was yet another Saturation Saturday and on Sunday two National Hunt meetings when one would have been plenty. And do you know what? Stratford and Newton Abbot are so close together on a map they would attract exactly the same trainers. If two National Hunt meetings were necessary, why not Stratford and Cartmel, after all Cartmel has a meeting on the Monday, or Newton Abbot and Hexham? The worst decision ever, well, it probably isn’t but its exasperating anyway, was giving the racecourses the licence to race whenever they wanted. Another example of the executive tail wagging the sporting dog.

​As anyone who has visited this site down the long, weary years, will be aware, I like Newbury racecourse, believing it to be the fairest and best flat and jumps course in the country, with nowhere near enough Group 1’s and Grade1’s in comparison to other so-called Group 1 racecourses. What they have done in allowing sensitive housing to be built on land sold to developers is a lesson to be learned by many other racecourses here and around the world. Yet sadly I have to side with those trainers who withdraw all thirteen runners from a race at Newbury due to be run on Saturday July 16th.
Of course, Newbury are none too pleased at being subjected to what in effect is a vote of no confidence and the Racecourse Association (R.C.A. – just to go down a blind alley for a moment, what does the C stand for in R.C.A. If they spell the word racecourse as one word, as is traditional, not as 2 words or with a hyphen, the C is affectation to the point of perplexity? Hardly gives an observer much confidence in them being efficient at representing their members, does it?) is ‘extremely disappointed’. Mad as hell, I should think, might be closer to the truth.
The R.C.A., no, I can’t be doing with that errant and unnecessary C – The Racecourse Association believe such petulant behaviour by the dissident trainers will throw a spanner into the complex workings of its ‘critical talks’ about the future of British racing’s governance. Along with the Thoroughbred Group, the Racecourse Association are attempting to out-muscle the B.H.A. into doing what they want it to do, which is to selfishly increase their profit-margins, at the expense of what is good for the long-term future of the sport. Needless to say, being feeble, the B.H.A. are favourite to capitulate and give the Racecourse Association 90% of what they are demanding and then suggest the 10% left on the negotiating table represents a great result for the sport.
The salient point is ignored, of course, by the troublesome – my opinion – Racecourse Association, that Newbury is known as a Group 1 racecourse and as such it should not be outshone by ‘lesser’ racecourses when it comes to prize money. A race with a value of £5,300 on a Saturday card with terrestrial t.v. coverage is a kick in the teeth to owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff. Newbury deserves better in terms of major races; in terms of importance neither the Lockinge nor the Challow Hurdle are races keenly awaited each season, and horse racing in this country deserves better when it comes to rewarding the owners and trainers that for decades have shown loyalty to Newbury racecourse.
Although when it came to Rishi Sunak collective responsibility went out the window, Jacob Rees-Mogg cited collective responsibility for his reason/excuse for not criticising Boris Johnson personally for Partygate or any of his failed political policies. And collective responsibility should be the clarion call from all of British racing’s stakeholders.
The one aspect of this which does a taste a little sour in the mouth is if trainers, to make a point, can get together to boycott a race on the grounds of ‘not good enough for a Group 1 track on a Saturday afternoon’, Roger Varian’s words, not mine, then why don’t they also take unilateral action and boycott 300 other races during the course of the season in order to flag up the blindly obvious problem of too much racing in this country?
The problems horse racing is suffering at the moment are not being dealt with in any meaningful or proactive way by the B.H.A., Racecourse Association or the Thoroughbred Group, so why doesn’t the Trainers’ Federation grab the bull by the horns and improve field sizes by the only logical method open to them? Choose 300 races and boycott them. Somebody has to sort our problems out, why not owners and trainers?

​I did not expect my ‘one hit and that’s it’ recommendation to win traction with the Whip Consultation Steering Group and do not criticise their decision to restrict whip use to back-hand only out of pique. What irks me is that they had the opportunity to kick horse racing’s enemies into touch and put to sleep this whole whip controversy for all-time. But, as is always the case in racing, the B.H.A., in approving the recommendations, have fudged the issue, allowing themselves wriggle-room come the next long debate on the matter.
It is not all bad news, though. The most controversial aspect of the new rules is to me the most necessary. Disqualification when jockeys win at all costs, or exceed the new whip rules, is the saving grace. Except a jockey can exceed the whip rules by four hits before disqualification is mandatory. And why, when the B.H.A. make great play that interference rules in this country are in accordance with interference rules in other countries, leave the number of strikes the same and not restrict to five-strokes as in France and Germany, two countries where British jockeys are often successful and rarely exceed the whip rules?
It is true, and commendable, that penalties for going over the limit of strikes and when the whip is used above shoulder height is to be increased, with double suspensions in major races. But why not all races. Abuse, if you believe hitting an animal with a whip is abuse, is abuse whether the horse is a selling plater or a Derby winner. And making the rules universal for all races would make riding a finish routine for the jockey, without him or her having to remember what grade of race they are riding in. There is too much shade and shadow in the new rules, with too many I’s still to be crossed. The B.H.A. have not even set a date for when the new rules come into force. I would have preferred a set date, with three or four months in incremental races per week, per day and per meeting, to allow jockeys to slowly change and perfect the new style of whip use. I would have set January 1st for the flat and May 1st 2023 for the jumps. Afterall, it has taken them over 2-years to come to this fudged conclusion, what would it matter to wait a further 5-months to set the new rules in motion?
Don’t get me wrong. Allowing only the backhand stroke and outlawing the forehand strike is definitely the right road to be taking on this issue and Tom Scudamore and P.J. McDonald’s optimism that the jockeys will accept the new rules without getting into a flap is nothing but positive. Yet after over two-years of consultation there remains enough wriggle-room for it to become a tiger trap for the sport. I would have loathed the sport to have taken the Scandinavian route and ban the whip altogether but at least they have achieved some form of finality.
And, of course, there is already a whole barrel-load of bleating on behalf of the poor old punter. Same old, same old. If someone has a large punt on an odds-on favourite and to get the horse home in front the jockey incurs disqualification, the punter will just have to lump it in the same as when a horse falls at the last, veers off a straight course or suffers an injury. The new disqualification rules will become just another interesting facet of the sport. And, of course, the steering panel have not adjudicated on whether a disqualification will take place before or after the official result is declared. As I said, too much shade and shadow.
Given all the varying options, and disqualifying my own proposal, the solution might have been no more than five strokes in the backhand, suspension for the jockey going one or two strokes over the limit and mandatory, not discretionary, disqualification at three or over, the same rule to apply to every race, not just the big t.v. races. 
Hear me, the whip debate will run and run and run, with more draconian rules somewhere down the line and no Julie Harrington ‘Having something that we feel is a deep enough and strong enough look, so that people don’t feel the need to intervene, is also important for us as a sport’ does not cut it as already World Horse Welfare is intervening.

​Sponsors, in my opinion, are a necessary evil, though perhaps that is using too strong an adjective in light of the life-blood they provide. Of course, if racing was financed in a similar way to other racing nations, sponsors would not be so vital to the survival of the sport in Great Britain. Heigh-ho! British racecourses inevitably turn to the betting companies for support. Indeed, several decades ago the sport was so dictated to by the betting industry I feared they would eventually take control in the same fashion as Formula 1 is a corporate business.
We live, I admit, in stringent times and we must accept financial support wherever we can find it. I do wonder, though, if racecourses actively go in search of sponsors or whether they wait for the phone to ring. Sunday’s racing (July 11th) was more typical of days gone by than the accepted sponsorship of modern times. Perth had race-names celebrating Mr & Mrs Duffy, Careers in racing, Eve Muirhead’s Gold at the Olympics (I hope she was invited to attend), Fosters (might be the global brewing company) and the Scottish Racing Academy. Stratford had sponsorship by Cotswold Larder, Allsopps, the Stratford Racing Club and Racing T.V., with nods to the upcoming Ladies Day and National Racehorse Week.
It was Sligo that really caught my eye, though, as their card exemplified the localness of sponsorship in Ireland, especially at their splendid and scenic rural tracks. The Killyhevlin Lakeside Hotel sponsored the maiden hurdle, Durkin Brothers Electrical the second maiden hurdle, Friends of Brian Mulligan the opportunity hurdle, Taylor Construction the handicap hurdle, Sligo Park Hotel the long-distance handicap hurdle and the more nationally-known Irish Stallion Farms the E.B.F. mares novice handicap.
Local racecourses should, in my opinion, be marketing outlets for local companies to drum-up business. Racecourses, especially the rural courses, should attempt to be a welcoming port of call for the local community, a market-place, a meeting-place, a venue to celebrate local heroes, to sing and dance and to be merry. Horse racing may have its origins in match races across Newmarket and Ascot Heath, a sport of the aristocracy and landed gentry, but it popularised itself, gained its first ‘social licence’, if you wish, at country fairs and town gatherings as a central part of the entertainment.
Yes, these early race-meetings were often rowdy, an attraction for pick-pockets and card-sharps, an assembly for near-do-wells to come from the dark to skin the gentry of their gold pocket-watches, wallets and the silk shirts off their backs if it could be achieved. But they were looked-forward-to events; a date in the calendar to circle, a day of relief from the ever-present daily struggle for survival. An integral part of the early meetings on the Knavesmire, or York as it is now known, were public hangings, not that I advocate returning to the long-drop for villains of any description (politicians, perhaps) yet the gruesome exercising of the law of past times has had no impact on a racecourse that today is one of the finest in the world.
The perception of race-meetings in this country is one of stuffiness, affluence, an entertainment for the rich, a venue not exactly welcoming to the likes of the factory worker or the office cleaner. Dress codes, with the possible exception of Royal Ascot, should be abandoned as out-of-date and discouraging, though best-dressed competitions should be encouraged so racegoers can, if they wish, don their best dress-up clothes and promenade as of olden-times. People living in local post-code areas, as I have said before, should receive discounted rates of entry. Admission prices should be routinely reduced and the excuse for out-of-proportion admission ‘that they are in line with other sports and entertainment’ should be criticised for what such excuses are, a lazy approach to keep out the riff-raff.
I have always said it, and will continue to do so, despite the sport’s ancestry, horse racing in this country is largely a working-class activity, underpinned by the wealthy and mega-wealthy. This fact should be lauded, not masked behind finery and exclusive enclosures.
Sligo last Sunday was a prime example of how the local racecourse should be integral to local commerce. Win the trust of the local community and put on entertainments for the whole family and they will come. Perhaps only once a year but that is a better starting point than never considering attendance at all. If Fred is opening a butchers’ shop, give him a small advertising space and invite him to a day’s racing and ask him to bring his friends and family. Give out a bit of the freebie in anticipation of long-lasting support through the turnstiles. 
One other point about sponsorship. In the U.S. recently, I noticed, and to my surprise, I have to admit, a major race had a sponsor but the race title did not change to any degree. Over here it would be the Fred the Butcher Nutsville Derby or whatever the title of the race happened to be. In the U.S. it was the Nutsville Derby presented by Fred the Butcher. The same as the Cazoo Derby could be the Epsom Derby presented by Cazoo, the on-line second-hand car dealership. Putting the horse before the cart, I would say, rather than the other way round. The Epsom Derby will be around for as long as there is horse racing in this country. Cazoo, not so much.

​Recently someone responded to a comment I posted in relation to a horse race I had watched on YouTube with a diatribe on my inability to see through the veil of corruption that he believes is at the very heart of the sport. I should say at this point that this correspondent is not conversant with any of the following principals of written English – capital letters, punctuation, full-stops and spelling. So I was not dealing with someone with any sort of education above junior school standard, not that being a prime example of the decline in schooling in this country absolved him from the calumny he inflicted upon the dedicated people who work honestly and diligently in our sport.
As is my want, I replied to the man hoping to disabuse him of his harsh criticism of a sport I have tendency to defend as if it is my mother being debased. I answered his initial examples of ‘bent jockeys’ etc by making the point that poor stewarding and poor riding judgment should not be used as evidence to taint the sport. The race won by a 100/1 shot at Hamilton quite recently was, apparently, the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ for many people, even though even a cursory inspection of either the race or the form-book would prove the only wrong-doing being, perhaps, the trainer running the horse consistently over the wrong trip previous to the Hamilton race.
Sadly, far from appeasing my correspondent, his next communication was heavily laden with the threat that along with his friends – apparently a race at Catterick had now loaded the gun of retribution – they were going ‘to do something about the problem’. What, exactly, they were intending to do, was left hanging in the air, though I suspect when he had sobered up his first thought would be to return to his local betting shop, no doubt via the supermarket to pick up a few cans, to lose more of his hard-earned dosh.
Although I continue to believe horse racing in this country is in the majority straight as a die, the perception is not one the sport should ignore. As I noted to my unfriendly correspondent, historically horse racing did have a problem with horses being pulled time and time again in order to bring off a major gamble somewhere down the line. You only have to read the autobiographies of jockeys who rode in the 1920, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s to be confronted with stories of horses stopped on the orders of the trainer, owner or local gangster. Paul Mathieu’s excellent book ‘The Druid’s Lodge Confederacy’ is about little else but gambles landed after long-planned strategies. There is a many a book collating and praising the ways and means horses have been used and abused down the decades to land small and large fortunes for their connections.
But does that mean these sort of shenanigans still exist today? One cannot argue that young horses are not given educational runs on occasions, which in the long run is to the benefit of the horse and the punter, with the clever punter looking at maiden 2-Year-Old races and novice hurdles to pick out tenderly-handled horses that look future winners. But since the implementation of tracking cameras, television cameras, indeed cameras here, there and everywhere, on the racecourse, allowing stewards instant access to race footage, I would suggest that the ‘pulling’ of horses is far, far less of a problem in British racing than jockeys allowing their mounts to drift off a true line in order to impede an opposing horse.
And, as I wrote in reply to my unfriendly correspondent, poor stewarding, which is on the increase in my opinion – the Eclipse and Lancashire Oaks come easily to mind – and poor riding judgment, should not be put forward as evidence of race-rigging. I am not saying that categorically it does not happen on British racecourses but if you are of the opinion that horses are regularly pulled then it becomes easier and easier to convince yourself that the game is rigged. I have no doubt that in betting shops the length and breadth of Great Britain last Friday there were disgruntled punters pointing at the screen and claiming that Frankie ‘pulled’ Inspiral so that he could win big (in some undefined way) on the winner.
I was stood in a betting shop a few years ago and overheard two blokes confirm to everyone around them that A.P.McCoy is ‘bent as a U-bend’, with someone else chiming in ‘And that Ruby Walsh’. If ever there were two jockeys who wanted to win every time they were legged-up on a horse it was A.P. McCoy and Ruby Walsh. But that is the sort of absurd observations the sport and its devotes must fight against.

​There was a time when publishers thought there was profit to be made from racehorse trainers, and racing trainers were keen to demonstrate how wrong they were as I doubt if any trainer made much of a profit with their literary exploits. I have no end (there is an end, obviously, it’s just I’m in a rush and can’t spare the time to declare a definite number) of these largely undistinguished efforts at matching the success of their careers with a similarly large number of books winging out of book shops. The latest in my collection, ‘Racing With The Gods’, by Marcus Marsh is the equal of the majority.
Trainers of Marsh’s era had the misfortune of having their careers interrupted by having to leave our shores to fight Hitler, with many of them meeting up in the theatre of war. In peaceful moments they would organise off-the-cuff race meetings, not for prize money but for something to do during lulls in activities. Marcus Marsh had the added misfortune to end up in Stalag Luft where he played his part in both the Wooden Horse and Big Tunnel attempted escapes.
Racehorse trainers of Marsh’s era came to training almost by right of birth. Gordon Richards excepted, of course, few jockeys were granted training licences as they did not have the financial wherewithal and social position to turn their hand to training upon retirement. Though Marsh did not take-over the stable of his father Richard, trainer to the King, he did have the benefit of acquiring the owners of Fred Darling, his uncle, when he retired. Though he had to prove himself, it can be fairly said Marsh started his career several rungs up the training ladder.
He won the 1934 Epsom Derby with Windsor Lad, the best horse he ever trained, at least in his own opinion, winning the St.Leger with the same horse. In 1950 he added the 2,000 Guineas to his role of honour with Palestine and achieved the Epsom Derby/St. Leger double again in 1952 with Tulyar, owned by the Aga Khan, his principal owner.
Marsh inherited the Aga Khan’s string at a time when the long-held principles of the stud farm were being questioned, and Marsh was not slow in declaring his reservations to both the Aga and Aly Khan. Tulyar bucked the descending trend but there were very few highlights during Marsh’s tenure. We think of the Aga Khan’s thoroughbred dynasty as being successful throughout the decades. Yet like all major breeding operations there comes a time when the blue-blood goes a little grey and requires a little pep here and there, stallions from different blood-lines, mares of better quality. But the Aga Khan, or to be more precise the Aly Khan, did not take kindly to kind and well-intentioned advice, terminating Marsh’s contract and then changing their mind and allowing him to keep what he had, though sending the new influx of yearlings elsewhere. As any trainer, even today, can appreciate, the buck always stops with the trainer, and if not the trainer, the jockey.
Marsh’s jockey, through thick and thin, was Charlie Smirke, who also served King and Country throughout the 2nd World War. Incidentally, Smirke’s autobiography ‘Finishing Post’ is worth a read. I shall have to re-read it if only to find out what Smirke thought of Marsh. So highly did Marsh think of Smirke that when the Aga Khan was considering offering a retainer to Lester Piggott, Marsh championed Charlie Smirke for the post.
‘Racing With The Gods’ is an okay read, though Marsh seemed keener to document his place in high society than the highs and lows of his racing career. Marsh knew all the right people, the people with influence, and these are the people who stand out from the page. His wife, or wives – he was twice married – hardly warrant a mention and his two children are only named at the very end of the book. Although I criticise writers when they over egg the pudding with family life, their should be no mystery about the nearest and dearest. It was if his wedding day and the birth of his children were of little consequence to him. To leave the family out of the life-story is to leave the reader with the idea that some sort of shame shadowed heart and home.
Marcus Maskell Marsh was born in 1904, retired from training in 1964 and died in 1983. His autobiography suggested to me that everyday of his adult life he wore a tie and cuff-links.

​Common-sense has prevailed. The Haydock stewards got their interpretation of events in the Lancashire Oaks completely wrong, with the culprit getting off scot-free due to their incompetence. Whether the B.H.A., who must be commended for intervening and throwing out the Haydock verdict, will hold inquiry into the affair, and whether the result of any inquiry will be made public, has not been announced. Also, in deciding Rab Havlin had caused ‘considerable interference’, the charge against him could be upgraded to ‘dangerous riding’, a charge stewards are loathed to post. I wonder if anyone from the Haydock stewards’ panel or the B.H.A. has apologised to Havlin, jockey fate continues to persecute. 
Even the jockeys themselves seem to believe the rules regarding ‘interference’ and ‘dangerous riding’ need to be clarified. Nobody should suggest that any professional jockey would do anything in a race to deliberately endanger the life of a colleague. And anyone who has ridden a racehorse will know that they are sentient beings with, on occasion, a will and a mind of their own. Paul Hanigan’s riding in the Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot, for example, where he received a 10-day suspension yet was allowed to keep the race, is a clear example of poor decision-making by a jockey leading to at least two other riders having to stop riding in order to prevent an accident with possible far-reaching consequences.
I am reminded of Ryan Moore’s reply to Her Majesty when she asked if his slight change of direction in the Ascot Gold Cup on Estimate, which resulted in a two-day ban, was accidental. ‘No, ma’am, he replied succinctly.’ In Paul Hanigan’s case, if asked the same question, hand on heart he would have to say ‘no, ma’am’, too. To jockeys, such manoeuvres come under the heading ‘race riding’. Yet Hanigan’s ride at Royal Ascot came dangerously close to ‘dangerous riding’, as to my mind any incident with the potential to cause harm to jockey, horse or both, is in itself self ‘dangerous’ and if stewards were to charge jockeys more frequently with ‘dangerous riding’ they would soon do more to either keep a straight course or not dive into gaps on the rails or between other runners. Christophe Soumillon, I am pleased to report, is now to appeal against the severity of his punishment for causing ‘considerable interference’ after the finish of the Eclipse and though obviously guilty of nearly putting James Doyle over the rails the offence was committed after the winning line and could not be deemed a deliberate act and as such he should not have been given a sentence far harsher than the one received by Hanigan and the wrongly prescribed penalty given to Havlin for breaching the same rule as Soumillon.
When a jockey commits an offence which results in a penalty of ten-days and upwards, disqualification should be standard. Such a measure is the only way to persuade jockeys to ‘play fair’

As someone who advocates ‘one hit and that’s it’ when it comes to the whip, you would think I would be supportive of the ‘no whip at all’ rules in Scandinavia. You would be wrong.
To ban the whip, and in Norway it is banned even for matters of safety, is to lay the sport open to charges of historical abuse and animal cruelty. My argument for severe restrictions on the use of the whip is that such a move will eventually improve, albeit it would bring about change, standards of riding as the emphasis will go from using the whip to achieve forward momentum to leg and body strength to keep the horse moving in a straight line. I also believe far fewer horses will suffer tendon and back injuries through becoming unbalanced in the final furlong due to jockeys moving around while pulling their stick through from one hand to the other.
The Scandinavian approach is pure wokery masquerading as ‘enlightenment’. 
My overriding concern, though, when the B.H.A. finally get round to publishing the latest amendments to the whip rule, is that on a set date jockeys will have to change overnight to a completely new way of riding a finish. This will be both unfair and a recipe for critical headlines in the media. Whether my proposal for ‘one hit and that’s it’ is the preferred option, which I doubt, or some other number or, god forbid, the Scandinavian approach, the new formula must be trialled, with, perhaps, one race per day restricted to the new rules, followed quickly by one race per meeting and ever upward to the dawn of the new socially acceptable way forward.
And what should also be considered in this debate is the paucity of sponsors coming forward to support the sport. No business would want to be associated with a sport with a public perception of being cruel in any way. You can argue to you are blue in the face otherwise, produce data and witness statements that prove that the sport is anything but cruel, but when ignorant people can say ‘look, jockeys beat horses with whips’ it will always be an upward climb to persuade potential supporters to come on board. For this reason, though not taken in isolation, it is in the long-term interests of the sport if the new whip rules verge on draconian. I am sure that when spurs were out-lawed there were people in the sport who prophesied doom and gloom and a downward curve to destruction for the sport. It will be the same with a severe limitation on the use of the whip. What is required is true enlightenment not pure wokery.