​Samcro last ran under rules in the 2022 Grand National. Not what people a few years earlier were predicting for him. Winning one or numerous Champion Hurdles was to be his destiny, at least according to that equine expert known as Matt Chapman. Or several Cheltenham Gold Cups. The racing world was Samcro’s oyster, it seemed. Samcro is now to run in point-to-points. Not a case of how the mighty have fallen as Samcro never reached the heights of the mighty.
I mention Samcro in the same breath as Constitution Hill as evidence for him being acclaimed ‘the second coming’, because as things stand his form closely resembles that of Samcro at a similar stage of his career. Now, don’t think for one moment I am the one dissenter when it comes to Constitution Hill. Potentially, he could easily be the great horse great men are predicting. But let’s not get carried away. He has run in five races, winning them all with ease, of course, but can anyone say, hand on heart, that beating Epatante 12-lengths, with Not So Sleepy only a few lengths behind her, is worthy of a Racing Post rating of 176?
According to the Racing Post, Constitution Hill is the third best 2-mile hurdler of modern times, with only Istabraq and Faugheen above him, with the likes of Alderbrook and Hurricane Fly (really) trailing in his wake. Utter nonsense, of course.
Ratings really are bollocks when a horse that has only run 5-times and is without a Champion Hurdle crown to his name, is rated higher than a horse that twice won the Champion Hurdle, with, is it, eighteen Grade 1’s to his name and is rated by Ruby Walsh as the best hurdler he ever rode. Incidentally, just to emphasise my antipathy towards ratings, Collier Bay achieved the same rating according to the Racing Post as Hurricane Fly! Really! Hands up anyone who is of the opinion that Collier Bay could even get within ten-lengths of Hurricane Fly?
And just to finish with ratings. Though the mares allowance is a brilliant innovation, when it comes to ratings it works mercilessly against mares. Referring again to Racing Post ratings, Dato Star, Collier Bay, Rooster Booster, Binocular and Kribensis, are all rated clear of Honeysuckle, twice the winner of the Champion Hurdler and unbeaten in 16 starts. Again, hands up anyone who believes any of the above could beat Honeysuckle, with or without the mares allowance?
Constitutional Hill is a wonderful horse with the racing world at his feet. It is obvious that Nicky Henderson believes he is the best he has ever trained, or at least potentially better than Sprinter Sacre in his pomp, and who better to recognise a great horse than the master of Seven Barrows. But until he beats Honeysuckle, and that’s no given as the mare only ever does enough to win and might be saving for herself more than enough to frighten the livings out of Constitution Hill come March, I refuse to join in with the hyperbole, as I refused to join in the hype over Samcro.
That said, God he does look mighty.

Although the racing was top-draw last Saturday, with L’Homme Presse particularly impressive, and to a lesser degree First Street, the day was overshadowed by the death of Porticello at Newbury. The Moore family are all brave, successful and a credit to the sport but for all that fate likes nothing more than piercing their lives with razor-cuts to the heart. Porticello had chaser written all over him and like Constitution Hill had the potential to make the equine world his playground. When fatalities occur the public never get to see a playback of the race so my thoughts are guesswork framed by a bias I have against British hurdles.
It is profoundly unfair bordering on accidents waiting to happen to ask a horse, especially a horse tiring at the end of a race, to jump a moving object. I do not know if Porticello was brought down by a swinging hurdle but it does happen and many horses have either lost their lives or been injured by a horse in front knocking the hurdle over, resulting in the horse directly behind having little chance other than to blunder into the hurdle as it swings back to its original position. In no equine sport are horses expected to jump moving obstacles and I wish British racing could replace the tradition hurdle with the small chase fence obstacles used on the continent and occasionally in this country, though Haydock for whatever reason seems to have abandoned them.
The brush obstacles/hurdles have the advantage that horses would only need to learn one method of jumping and surely would make the transition from hurdle to fence so much easier to accomplish. I rest my case.

​The new whip rules come into force in this country on February 6th, with a ‘bedding in period’ starting on January 9th and lasting until, I guess, February 5th. On its own there is little to quibble about, after-all, the B.H.A. had to eventually decide upon a starting point for the ban on the forehand use of the whip and the potential for disqualification if jockeys exceed the limit of eight strokes by a count of four. If the offence occurs in a major race all suspensions for jockeys will be doubled. ‘Harsh’, as the female jockey says in the t.v. commercial. 
Now, whether you are in favour of the whip being used so publicly in this woke world is another debate entirely. Though, I suspect, in time use of the whip, whether in the forehand or backhand position, will form the last skirmish in the war to save our sport extinction.
Surely someone at the B.H.A. should have had the foresight or common-sense, or the balls to speak-up, to realise that bringing in these changes five-weeks before the Cheltenham Festival, with most of the Irish jockeys having no first-hand experience of riding to the new rules, is a potential recipe for a whole load of bad publicity? In National Hunt (the new rules for the flat begin on Lincoln Handicap day on March 27th, with a similar bedding in period as for National Hunt) shouldn’t someone at the B.H.A. have displayed a greater grasp of the bigger picture and fought for a bedding in period from the first day of the new season, with the new rules kicking in five-weeks later? After the Lord Mayor’s shows at Cheltenham and Aintree.
Yet, as poor is the decision to implement the rules on the date they have chosen, neither the new rules nor the firing of the starters’ pistol is not my main concern/criticism. 
When it was decided to find a new colour for the woodwork of fences and hurdles an university was brought-in to conduct a series of trials, with the horses, seemingly, favouring white over all the others colours trialled. I am no jockey but to my eyes I believe the majority of horses are jumping more cleanly. Certainly, I have heard no complaints from jockeys.
So, why did no one put forward the suggestion that some of the better ideas put forward in the B.H.A.’s survey be trialled in races? If, for example, for two-weeks there were a dozen races restricted to no strikes of the whip, a similar trial for ‘one strike and that’s it’, a similar length of trial for the rules now to be implemented, with another trial for the Scandinavian approach. The B.H.A. would then have gathered enough data and opinions to make a judgement based on real-world racing, rather than having another shot in the dark at what might be best for horse racing in the long-term.
I am not saying that the new rules will not work. What I am saying is that no one knows if they will bring about any improvement for jockeys, horses or quieten the baying mob at our gates. When that bloody awful idea of City Street Racing was proposed, an idea dead and buried it is to be hoped, at least its proponents had the guile to conduct trials, a common-sense approach that didn’t, it seems, impress the B.H.A.
The new rules, which may or may not allow the long-running debate to be put on the backburner for a while, could easily have been drawn-up by the jockeys themselves. Little has changed for them, the strikes remain the same, they can still crack a horse on its rump eight-times, they just must not use the whip in the forehand position; they even have a four-strike leeway before disqualification comes into play.
As Racing Post journalists continue to say: the sport has a dreadful addictive habit of shooting itself in the foot. My fear is that it might just have gone and done it again. And with a little more thought it could so easily have been avoided.

​I may well stand accused here of hypocrisy. I believe, and have stated this belief many times on this website, that the first principal of horse racing should be that the horse comes first in all matters. As such, I should be 100% in agreement with Nicky Henderson, Alan King and Venetia Williams, in their decision to withdraw Constitution Hill, Edwardstown and L’Homme Presse from their respective races at Ascot this weekend. On Saturday, perhaps due to my profound disappointment at being prevented from seeing the three horses run for the first time this season, I was, at least in my mind, highly critical of both their decision and their reasons for taking an infuriating decision that displayed horse racing in a very poor light.
On reflection, though, I believe the matter in hand is not the withdrawal of the three horses but ‘between the clerk of the course and the trainers in question and who held the moral high ground? Nicky Henderson claimed that in his opinion the true state of the ground was ‘good to firm’ or ‘quick’. Alan King agreed. Even though the soft ground preferring Goshen won quite tidily on the same ground that was not good enough for Constitution Hill, Edwardstown and L’Homme Presse to strut their stuff. But if Henderson, King and Williams, were correct in their description of the ground, then ‘the good, good-to-soft in places’ was clearly a misrepresentation and as such a) an enquiry should be called and b) the clerk of the course, if found in error, should be reprimanded in some way.
It has to be admitted that circumstances have been testing for clerks and their ground-staff for the past six-months or more, with lack of rainfall and diminishing levels of water in reservoirs for irrigation. But if the ground is firm or good-to-firm clerks should be truthful, with no need of apology as the situation is clearly out of their hands. This, I believe, is the crux of the matter; not were the three trainers acting in cowardice for withdrawing their prestige horses. It is blindly obvious that either the going description was accurate or, as Nicky Henderson made clear, it was not. All three trainers declared with the going described as ‘good, good-to-soft in places’ and on race-day it remained the same, yet no fines were issued. That only makes sense if the stewards believed the trainers had a fair point and the ground was not as advertised in both the morning papers and on track.
What must be concerning for connections and enthusiasts is that the same situation could occur both up at Newcastle this Saturday and at Sandown the following week. There is no doubt that racecourses, due to the prolonged dry spell, are soaking up rainwater like a sponge and for all the rain that may fall on Newcastle and Sandown if it stops on the Thursday or Friday the ground might go from soft to good overnight and we will have the spectacle of Henderson (with his trusty walking-stick) and de Boinville (in his wellington boots) walking the track before racing with faces as long as Constitution Hill’s.
Where I find Nicky Henderson somewhat contrary is that he could run Constitution Hill at Newbury this week in the Gerry Fielden, which is now, I believe, a limited handicap, yet his preference seems to be to drag his horse all the way up to Newcastle to face a right ding-dong with his stablemate Epatante who will be in receipt of the 7Ib mares weight allowance. To me, a numbskull, yes, without the assistance of a shred of inside knowledge, that is making the ‘nightmare’ situation ever more complicated.
One final point on the weather. I live in North Devon and we have had a foot of rain in the past few weeks; I wish someone would build a racecourse hereabouts as we get a whole lot of weather, and I mean the Atlantic is an, at times, over-zealous provider of rainfall and stormy winds. It rains as I prattle on!

​Soumillon.
I am told that Christophe Soumillon was warned about his conduct by the French stewards on at least one occasion during the season just gone. If this is true, why did his punishment for elbowing Rossa Ryan out of the saddle not reflect this? As I said before, a two-month suspension of his licence during the quiet months of October and November was no more than an enforced holiday for a jockey with Soumillon’s riding record and the wealth that accompanies such a stellar career. Now with the police that oversees such matters in France muscling in on the case, it seems the penalty imposed on Soumillon could be lengthened or might even extend to having his riding licence suspended indefinitely. 
As riding offences go, causing grievous harm during a race to a fellow jockey, would be pretty hard to beat, and the fact that Rossa Ryan walked away unscathed by the incident is hardly here nor there. The possible ramifications of an elbow to the face could have resulted in severe injury or worse. When a horse falls, a jockey, though not exactly expecting it, does have instincts that kick in to protect himself to some extent. An assault during a race would be completely unexpected, leaving the jockey unable to comprehend what had happened to him and, in Rossa Ryan’s case, with no experience on how to deal with falling off over the horse’s tail.
Soumillon, of cause, lost his retainer with the Aga Khan over the incident, not for the first time, and perhaps the lost revenue from not riding the largest string of racehorses in France will cause him to reflect longer and more bitterly on his ‘moment of madness’ than the two-months twiddling his fingers until his suspension runs its course. It is my opinion, that if Oisin Murphy deserved a 12-month ban, Soumillon deserved at least the same. Perhaps with the intervention of the French Gaming Police the penalty will fit the crime.

The Betfair Chase.
To some, changing your mind is a sort of weakness of character. Yet, as top trainers prove time and time again, a change of plan is testimony to the genius of being willing and able to think on their feet. After the Badger Beer at Wincanton, Paul Nicholls told everyone with ears that Frodon would go straight to the King George. It seemed a logical plan, yet now, subject to half-decent ground at Haydock, Frodon is to strut his considerable stuff against A Plus Tard on Saturday, not in hope of toppling the Gold Cup winner but in pursuit of second-place money, the £40,000 on offer a major help to him in retaining his trainer’s championship and a help to Frodon’s owner in paying the fees for those horses in his ownership who do not, unlike Frodon, pay their way. At 20/1 Frodon is the value in the race as he must have every chance of finishing in front of Bristol D Mai (the ground will most likely be nowhere near soft enough) and Eldorado Allen, though Protektorat will be a more stern foe.
On the subject of the Betfair; I believe the race has run its course and should be altered in some way or done away with altogether. If it was not for the ground invariably being soft or heavy at Haydock during the winter months, I would advocate the race being confined to second-season chasers (last season’s novices). If that were the case this year the race would be more competitive with the likes of L’ Homme Presse, Bravemansgame, Ahoy Senor and any number of last season’s better Irish novice chasers in contention for such a large early season prize. To my mind, the Betfair weakens every other 3-mile chase of note right up to the King George, and perhaps even the King George itself as the winner at Haydock invariably has a hard, tiring race.

The New Shape of British Racing’s Governance.
The B.H.A. now have the final say on all things affecting horse racing in this country. The tripartite agreement is now, rather than dead in the water, as most people have recognised, cremated, its ashes left in a trash-can where they should have been placed soon after its inception. 
Hooray, those who know about these things are generally hollering. But, the B.H.A. still have to make the right decisions and while it is beholden to shareholders that might not be as easy as a walk-over at Huntingdon.

Saturday.
Constitution Hill, Edwardstown, A Plus Tard, Hitman, Bristol De Mai, Protektorat, Frodon, L’Homme Presse, Goshen, Sir Gerhard, State Man, Vauban – Need I say other than Bring it On!

​Hands up! I have never seen Flightline race, apart from the footage I.T.V. televised from his race before the Breeders Cup. Yes, though I watched, for the first ever time, some of the races from the Breeders Cup, mainly on Saturday, I did not last the course in order to see for myself the wonder horse Flightline. An early start the following day forbade me to stay up to watch the ‘Championship of the World’ to its, apparently, wondrous conclusion. And yes, being a cynic by nature the hullabaloo over Flightline did not float my boat.
Now, I am not refuting for a moment that Flightline is, or was, a horse of prodigious ability, the winning distances he achieved makes that unarguable to even someone of my cynical nature. But come on, the horse has a career record of 6 from 6, all on dirt and I suspect all over the same distance and racing only on left-turning racecourses. Would he have stayed sound beyond six-races? Could he have won races on turf or over longer or shorter distances?
Any journalist who believes Flightline is ‘the best ever’ or ‘one of the best ever’ is guilty of indulging himself or herself in an extravaganza of hyperbole. The word ‘potentially’ must be used when anyone gives their opinion on where Flightline stands in the pantheon of great horses, even U.S.-based great horses. Flightline, like so many European-based, racehorses, had the potential to set the benchmark for what a racehorse must achieve to top that mythical pantheon of ‘great racehorses’. Without taking anything away from Sea The Stars, a horse regularly listed as one of the ‘great horses’, his dominance lasted for no more than eight-months before he was whisked away to stud as, and I quote, ‘he had nothing else to prove’. Of course, he was retired at the end of his three-year-old season as his value as a stallion would have plummeted if he proved unable to give weight and a beating to the following year’s crop of three-year-olds.
This is also true about Flightline; retired before the financial bubble could burst. Of course, $50-million dollars in stud fees in his first season as a stallion would be difficult for any one of us to turn down. And, I am sure, those invested in Flightline are in it for the money, not the sport.
And this the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned. Horse racing is both a sport and an industry and like the chicken and the egg it is arguable comes first? Well, I’ll tell you the answer, the sport, as without the races that comprise the sport, Flightline would not be worth today what the bloodstock market suggests he is worth to his owners. Racing journalists, though perhaps not bloodstock journalists, should be appalled that a potentially great horse should be taken from the sport after only six-races. Six!
It is my opinion, contentious as it may be, that owners have a primary responsibility to the sport, especially in an age when the sport all around the world is facing hardships and criticism from anti-animal sports activists. Horses with the ability of Flightline draw crowds to racecourses; they put bums on seats to an extent that no human participant can normally do. The sport in the U.S. needed Flightline to stay in training for another year in the same way the sport in Britain needed the boost of Baaeed staying in training as a five-year-old. In retiring Flightline after only a handful of races, his owners are being both excessively greedy and selfish. They should not be applauded but held to account for acting solely for their own benefit. And $4.5 million for 2.5% share is ludicrous if you dwell on the possibility that the horse might be a dud at stud. It happens.
Is it any wonder that National Hunt in this country and Ireland has the more loyal and substantial following?