blackmore, experts, what do they know, punting survey, brookshaw and evans & just stop it!

​The career of Rachael Blackmore is on the downslide, apparently. She is 35 and suffering her worst year in the saddle since being appointed stable jockey to the powerful Henry de Bromhead stable. Tenth in the jockeys’ championship is not where she has been for the past five-years and I dare say she is not happy with how her season is progressing.
The truth of the matter is that the de Bromhead team were operating at 25% or more whilst Blackmore was injured and Darragh O’Keeffe benefitted from her absence. At one time, before the Mullins team got into full swing, allowing Paul Townend to become dominant once more, O’Keeffe led the jockeys’ championship table with fifty-winners; he too has slowed since the New Year, even though he receives far more outside rides than Blackmore.
The magical days may be behind her but that does not equate to her career coming to a halt. The de Bromhead stable always come alive in March and that may yet happen this season and Blackmore will go home with a few more Grade 1’s to her name. What does concern me, though, and no one on the Racing Post staff has provided any insight into the matter, is that she no longer rides the Robcour horses with de Bromhead, with O’Keeffe even coming over to Windsor to ride Journey With Me when Blackmore was there riding another of the de Bromhead horses.

Experts, what do they know? When it comes to horse racing, we are all analysts, from punters to journalists, from top professionals to people like me, someone with an opinion. It just seems to me the height of absurdity when a Racing Post ‘analyst’ more or less tells someone of Venetia Williams’ reputation that she has seriously erred not entering L’Homme Presse in the Ryanair as in his or her opinion the horse has no chance in the Gold Cup and on heavy ground might sluice-up in the lesser race. Yes, I am a hypocrite, having suggested Stage Star should be supplemented for the Gold Cup when Paul Nicholls obviously believes going back to Cheltenham would be a poor decision, with Aintree the target after his good effort in the Cotswold Chase. Of course, as long as L’Homme Presse does not run in the Ryanair and Stage Star is not supplemented for the Gold Cup, neither of us can be proved wrong and claim things might have been different if our advice had been taken.

The Racing Post is conducting another punting survey. As I do not punt, I shall not be putting in my two-pennies worth. People who bet should fill out the form, though, as it is an opportunity to have your say. It might help sway either government opinion or those who sit in ignorance on the Gambling Commission.

Ben Brookhouse and David Evans have been hauled over the coals for giving horses medication they should not have done or at least not keeping a record of the medication they have used. The former was fined £1,700 and the latter £1,500. As Peter Scargill in his column in the Racing Post commented, you would think there should be a B.H.A. nationwide data base which trainers were obliged to update all medications and medical procedures concerning the horses in their care. Surprisingly, and someone of his experience – buyer of horses and son of a trainer - is mystified why the medical history of each horse is considered the property of the owner and need not be disclosed when the horse is sold. This is yet another area of the sport where the B.H.A. needs to be nudged towards getting its act together, if only to protect the sport from bad publicity when horses are found with illegal substances in their bloodstream.
How can the B.H.A. exercise good governance if it is unaware of the medications being used in stables that they themselves licence as fit and proper for the training of racehorses. It seem to me to be ridiculous that a trainer must make the B.H.A. aware when a horse has a wind-op, with that information published on race-cards, yet they, and the public, are in the dark when it comes to what medications are being used, even for legitimate purposes.

I continue to be annoyed by people, all of whom should know better, conflating the potential of Constitution Hill with legends of the sport, as with Malcom Wallace, a man of notable reputation, aligning in a letter to the Racing Post the error by Constitution Hill at the last hurdle in the Unibet, with Arkle’s horrendous destruction of a fence on the way to him winning the Gold Cup. The only similarity is that both races were a doddle for both and both created a ‘heart in mouth’ moment. Arkle, as I keep reminding people, is the greatest horse to ever grace a racecourse, while I could name half-a-dozen or more hurdlers who achieved far more in their careers than Constitution Hill has yet to achieve. He is, I freely admit, a wonderful racehorse but one Champion Hurdle doth not make a legend. When he retires, then we can judge his status. At the moment, he possesses the potential for greatness. But he is not there yet. So just stop comparisons with horses that are legends and hurdles who strutted their greatness in what is recognised as ‘the golden age’ of hurdlers.