​I am currently reading John Fairfax-Blakeborough’s ‘Paddock Personalities’, subtitled ‘Being Thirty-Years of Turf Memories’, published around the early 1930’s. There is definitive date of publication.
If you browse the catalogue of booksellers ‘Ways of Newmarket’ you will quickly discover that Fairfax-Blakeborough was a prolific writer of racing books, many of which you will have to stump-up £400 or more to own. Way out of my comfort zone, I can tell you. I don’t believe I have paid more than £35 for a book, though I do lust over many of the rarer books in Ways catalogue. Oh, to be a millionaire and not a pensioner of little means!
I have thus far only got as far as page 34 and already there are gems that must be forwarded to anyone who may stumble upon this website.
Firstly, though, and here I am backing an outsider at longer odds than a John Meacock runner in a Royal Ascot Group 1 back in the seventies and eighties, I am in search of information on Paddy Cowley, the champion National Hunt jockey back in 1908 (or was it 2006?). A relative of his is trying to research his life and is in need of a photograph of him, either a portrait or when riding, or mention of him in a racing book or article. I have exhausted my use on the subject, please get in touch and I’ll pass on any useful information. Cowley died at Hooton Park races in 1911. It’s a long lone time ago.
Back to Fairfax-Blakeborough. The first ‘gem’ was considered an ‘old story’ by the author and perhaps has taken on the aura of an urban legend. It concerned John Osborne when he was a jockey. He later became a successful trainer. He was accused by an owner of not riding to orders. Osborne was known for being courteous and respectful to people and not wanting to seem argumentative, his reply was thus. ‘You’re quite right, and I must apologise for not carrying out all your instructions, but the fact of the matter was that you gave me so many orders the race was not long enough to get them all in.’ I am sure modern-day jockeys can still relate to Osborne’s urbane wit.
Even today, we read letters in the Racing Post and, indeed in articles by their own journalists, on failings committed by racecourses. Owners complaining about the food or service in the owners bar. Trainers complaining about the conditions of the racecourse stables, etc. Yet at the turn of the century till, I believe, around the time of the outbreak of the 1st World War, racecourses did not provide free stabling, or accommodation or food for grooms, no free luncheons or tea for owners and trainers. Trainers would have to find suitable stabling close to the racecourse, in the stables of pubs or hotels.
Horses would be travelled to the races by train, with long walks for horse and lad from the nearest station to the racecourse, in all weathers. Jockeys and trainers would have to catch a train to and from the racecourse, with early starts and late finishes, as of today. The railway stations close to Sandown and Newbury, for instance, are not there by chance. The owners of racecourses lobbied the train companies to build them on the promise of healthy profits on race-days.
Fairfax-Blakeborough surprised me when he wrote that as early as the 1930’s owners and trainers were using aeroplanes to get to race-meetings as I considered this a more modern development. Since 1900, the world has changed at a pace unequalled at any other time in history. In 1900 it would have been impossible for a trainer in Newmarket to watch his horses on the Heath in the morning and be at a racecourse in the north of England in the afternoon, yet train and car turned that on its head. In fact, I would suppose, with less traffic on the roads in the 1930’s, the journey from Newmarket to Thirsk could be accomplished quicker back then than with the faster cars of today.
Fairfax-Blakeborough, balances the then and now of travel by citing the achievement of a Middleham-based jockey, Tommy Lye, who in 1834 rode two winners on an afternoon at Edinburgh, caught the Carlisle coach (carriage and 4-horses, I would say) ‘and by means of it and post-horses reached Northallerton in time to ride two more winners the following afternoon.’ It was not unheard-of for jockeys of that period to hack great distances with their saddles tied to their backs to get from home to a race-meeting and back. Modern jockeys have it so easy, don’t they? 
One comment the author does make, which ties in nicely with my assertion that we need in our time to associate race-meetings with local fairs and holidays to reinvigorate the racecourse experience, is that between 1900 and the early 1930’ he had noticed a ‘different spirit amongst the racing crowds’. Less leisurely, less friendly, less interested in the sport and horses and more concerned with the commercial side, by which, I believe, he means betting. ‘The whole atmosphere of the paddock and basic motives seem to have altered.’
I look forward to delving deeper into the history of horse racing during the years of the author’s reminiscences and will doubtless pilfer his knowledge and insight for future pieces for this website. Out of copyright, thankfully, though keeping the name of John Fairfax-Blakeborough alive, not that he’ll ever become a forgotten man of racing literature.

​If I were a professional, before penning this article, I would search out my last published opinion on the subject of the summer jumping programme. My defence for not, at least, pretending to be in any way professional, is my dislike/horror for reading anything I wrote in the past. Occasionally, when forced by circumstance to read past efforts, I am taken by surprise at the sagacity of my idea and how I framed my point of view. Usually, though, I am left somewhere between appalled and embarrassed at my inability to express myself with greater coherence. In my mind, I believe Lee Mottershead or the part-timer Patrick Mullins can bash-out a thousand-words, press send and give the article no second-thought, safe in the belief that their boss Tom Ellis would have no need to suggest they ‘re-write a paragraph’ or change ‘an emphasis’.
So, no, opinions held in this article may not conform with anything I have written on this subject in the past.
Ben Pauling has suggested there should be a separate trainers championship for the summer jumping programme as is the situation for flat trainers during the winter. He did not say there should be a separate jockeys championship as well but for continuity there should be.
By the by, for context. I have never embraced the perfectly logical process of ‘digital folders’, the putting into one file all articles of a similar nature to make sourcing them at a later date quick and easy. Which is why there is more than one-thousand individual titles in the index, not all of them related to this website, including all the fiction I have written over a very long period.
Whether Ben Pauling or any of his colleagues would agree with a suggestion I posted not too long ago that the National Hunt season proper should start later and end later – I think I proposed late October to early June (the actual dates I proposed are unimportant, it is the concept that should be debated) – though the beginning and end of a summer jumping championship is of secondary importance to the B.H.A. taking on-board his proposal and acting upon it.
He believes a summer trainers’ championship would improve competition and lead to more horses being available to increase field sizes. I doubt if field sizes will increase as only a certain percentage of National Hunt horses need a firm surface to show their best form. I doubt if a trainers and jockeys championship will alter that fact.
That is not to oppose the suggestion. I think, if only on the point of equality between the two codes, that a summer championship be initiated as flat trainers already have a winter championship. The best step for increased field sizes is to limit the number of meetings through the summer period and having more two and three-day meetings to cut down, possibly, on traveling for horse, jockey, trainer and possibly owner and helping hotels, restaurant and general commerce in the areas around the racecourses. The horse racing industry can be too insular at times; we should give consideration to being of greater use to people of trade in the towns and villages around our country racecourses.
What grieves me is that innovation is rarely initiated by the B.H.A., except in circumstances that cause controversy as with ‘premierisation’ (not that this topic was their idea, they have just run with it) and the never-ending saga of whip reform. Ben Pauling’s idea is perfectly reasonable and sensible and would give many more jockeys an opportunity to be champion jockey during the main part of the season. It will not alter the trainers’ championship, of course, that will remain a dog-fight between Nicholls and Henderson, with Willie Mullins nipping at their heels if he should dominate the Cheltenham and Aintree Festivals. It will, though, give parity between the flat and National Hunt codes and cost very little to implement.
It might be worth pursuing the concept of a B.H.A. forum group being established where members of the ‘horse racing family’ can lodge similar ideas for discussion. Or perhaps the Racing Post might want to take the lead and have a panel of their journalists thrash out the pros and cons of ideas put forward by professionals and enthusiasts alike.
The B.H.A., of course, would start with a forum on whether a forum would be a good idea or not. There would be an experimental period of three-months with five forum members, extended to a trail of twelve-months with ten-members, then a steering group for the implementation of part of the proposal and a research study amongst the public. The idea would be ratified and pencilled in for inauguration in 2027 by when summer jumping would be in such a parlous state no fix would be affordable.
I hope Ben Pauling has more faith in the B.H.A. than I have.

​The saddest part is that the Curragh and the Irish racing authorities seem to be sitting back believing that only time can solve the problem in the decline in popularity with owners and trainers of the Irish Derby. That said, the decline is not wholly the fault of the Irish. It is the fault of breeders and their insatiable quest for speed, speed, speed. The proliferation of top 2-year-old races over sprint distances and the greater limelight put on Group sprint races to the detriment of the top middle-distance and staying races is at the heart of this particular problem. And not only with the Irish version of the Derby. The Epsom Derby isn’t what it used to be either. Watch old Pathe News videos on YouTube if you want corroboration of what I mean. The Epsom Derby used to halt a nation; it was great day-out for both the working class and the social elite. It should be returned to being staged on the first Wednesday in June.
To turn the ship around there has to be greater incentives for breeders to breed again for stamina and to forsake the rest of the equine world’s obsession with sprinters and milers. In the first instance, the proliferation of sprinters is doing the classic races of Europe more harm than good and it is also playing its part in a fewer number of ex-flat horses available to National Hunt trainers. 
But to return to the fall from grace of the Irish Derby.
Something above and beyond changing the day of the race from Saturday to Sunday must be attempted, especially as there is very little hope of the European Pattern Committee even considering moving the race to another month during the summer. To my mind, as radical an idea as it might be, that the Irish Derby might be more attractive to owners and trainers if it were run in August, a time of the year when Group type 3-year-olds must take on older horses. But that isn’t going to happen, so let’s move on.
The obvious suggestion is to include a bonus prize if the winner of either the English or French Derbies should win the Irish version. £1-million, perhaps, with a supplementary bonus of £500,000 if any placed horses in the English and French Derbies were to win at the Curragh. Or perhaps ‘win and you are in’ races throughout Europe and the U.S. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I suspect, though, that money will not solve the problem as Sunday’s prize-fund will have fed the starving of third world countries for the next twelve-months. But bonuses must be considered as the Irish Derby has too rich a history to be allowed to wither on the vine, to be harvested year after year by one man, one set of owners or, as likely in the future, the families of the before-mentioned. 
It is championed by Racing Post journalists that the distance should be shortened to that of the French Derby. Yet for the future such a move would exacerbate the decline in the breeding of middle-distance and staying horses. When the historic distance of Derbies becomes too far a stretch, how long will it be before the clamour is heard for 1-mile to be more appropriate than 1-mile 2-furlongs? And that Guineas races should be reduced to 7-furlongs? In the U.S., any distance beyond 1-mile 2-furlongs is considered a long-distance race.
The truth is this: breeders put greater prestige on the Guineas, and Group 1’s over 1-mile 2-furlongs. It is this thinking, the world perspective view, that is slowly choking the life out of the historic middle-distance races in both Britain and Ireland. The situation is not new in the making. There was a horror-afoot back in 1972 when John Hislop insisted his great horse, the winning machine, Brigadier Gerard should have his limitations exposed by running in the King George & Queen Elizabeth Stakes. He won, his courage, perhaps, greater than his stamina. The best example of this horror of exposing the limitations in a potential great stallion was Frankel, a horse that breeds stayers for fun and on the racecourse a horse with limitless stamina and class, yet his owner and trainer always played safe. “Why should we,” rather than “Why not”.
Although Auguste Rodin has now won twice at 1-mile 4-furlongs, you can bet your bottom dollar that to ‘improve his standing amongst breeders’ Coolmore will be desperate for him to demonstrate the speed to win over 2-furlongs less, especially when in receipt of the age allowance.
As for the horse himself; he’s an ordinary Derby winner. In eyes he is no ‘collector’s item’. King of Steel is the best 3-year-old around and I hope at some point this season Roger Varian gives him the opportunity to prove his superiority. 

​The recent post Royal Ascot spat between Newmarket trainer George Boughey and Sheikh Abdullah Almalet Alsabah over the performance of the owner’s Asadna in what ever race it was, (the Chesham?) is a case of the trainer being damned whichever way he managed the situation.
I am sure you are all aware that Asadna suffered a cut to his shoulder the week before Royal Ascot. I suspect he caught the door of his stable as he was being led out for exercise. Pure speculation on my part but from my experience more likely than the horse being kicked. The horse was never lame, was treated accordingly and Boughey kept the B.H.A. informed of the horse’s welfare throughout and Asadna passed the obligatory pre-race veterinary examination upon his arrival at the racecourse. In effect, the trainer did everything by the book.
Two things he didn’t do, seemingly, was to inform either the owner or the press/public. The first instance is a moot point. The horse was not lame, there was no suggestion the participation of the horse at Royal Ascot was in doubt and Boughey had a hundred and one matters, many of greater importance or urgency, to attend to at a crucial time of year for his business. Perhaps the owner should have been informed but where does a trainer draw the line at what information he must pass on to each and every owner? Should a trainer inform an owner that his or her horse was naughty when being shod that morning and the farrier had need to use ‘sharp words’ to bring the horse to order. Or a horse kicked the wall of its stable while being groomed. Or that his or her horse stood on a stone on the way back from the gallops and may or may not have bruised a foot.
Likewise, what information is relevant to a racing journalist/tipster? Or punter? If the trainer of every runner in the Royal Hunt Cup was obliged to report every little mishap and incident that had occurred to each runner during the lead-up to the meeting, wouldn’t that become information overload? How would all that information be disclosed to the press and public?
Should a trainer running a horse in blinkers for the first time on a racecourse provide video footage of the horse on the gallops when first trialled in blinkers? Something, I would suggest, far more relevant to the press and public than a small cut.
The story on Asadna was the owner taking umbrage at a lack of communication with his trainer, not what Boughey should or should not have informed the press. Owners like the Sheikh pour millions of pound into owning racehorses to run in this country, there has to be a level of confidentiality between owner/trainer that the press/public have no right to be a party of. When assessing the form of any race there has to be an element of it being a guessing game, it is why last week people won money on a 150/1 outsider that every professional journalist and punter ignored. Form and ratings do not equate to science. If Boughey had announced that Asadna had suffered a small injury and might not run, then he did run, he could easily be accused of ‘putting punters away’ if the horse won at longer odds that it was prior to the announcement.
Asadna may never win another race. Or he might win a classic. Who knows? What is certain is whichever scenario comes true, it will have nothing to do with his run at Royal Ascot.
Training racehorses is a stressful business. As Sir Mark Prescott once said something alone the lines of (tongue in cheek as it normally is with the great man) horses spend all their time trying to injure themselves, while the staff do their best to abet them. Every minute of every day a horse in a stable of a hundred could bang a knee, go off their food, suffer a bout of colic, spring a tendon on the gallops and so on. He or she must cater for the wants and needs of every owner and for every minute of every day the telephone might bring problems in need of immediate answers from the press, from owners with helpful suggestions on what is best for their horse and so on and so on.
Trainers, I believe, would need to employ a press agent to comply with any regulation or request to inform the press/public with every trifling occurrence to the horses in their care. There has to a be a line and that line should be if a horse suffers an injury that puts its next scheduled racecourse appearance in jeopardy. Anything beyond that is intrusion on matters governed by owner/trainer confidentiality.
The mental well-being of trainers is as important as any other member of the racing industry. Racehorse trainers are not running a charitable organisation for the financial well-being of punters, they are running a business. Journalists want their cake and to eat it. They eulogise the gambling exploits of Ryan Price, Barney Curley and the Druid Lodge Confederacy, yet wish total openness in the modern era. Journalist will soon be campaigning to force trainers to allow punters free access to yards and grandstands erected by the side of gallops and a running commentary on the horses flashing by.
George Boughey was the victim here, not the punter.

​Firstly, as of this moment, 5 am, I have yet to read my on-line Racing Post and I am not up-to-speed with the numbers and facts of the jockeys banned from the July Cup meeting as a result of their riding at Royal Ascot and, secondly, my views are contrary to my argument that when the top jockeys are missing for whatever reason, it gives those lower down the order opportunities to ride a better-class of horse in a better-class of race.
If the Professional Jockeys Association were to propose a strike of their members over the issue of the present rules regarding use of the whip, I would support them. They will not go on strike, of course, and I doubt it would even be debated. But there must be severe disquiet in the weighing room over the number of jockeys receiving draconian punishments for what is in effect only technical infringements of what is, I believe, unnecessary restrictions imposed for cosmetic reasons. 
As things stand, I believe, Frankie Dettori came out of Royal Ascot with 17-days- worth of bans, 9 for being the cause of a rival jockey having to snatch-up to avoid an accident and further 8 for his riding of Inspiral in the Queen Anne. The first 9-days is, I believe, an appropriate suspension, the other eight-days are questionable. The July Cup will also be without Oisin Murphy for similar reasons.
What message the B.H.A. believes it is sending out to the wider public only they can know. If I were an outsider looking in, the spread of suspensions, especially to our highest profile jockeys, would suggest British jockeys possess carpet-beating mentalities when it come to use of the whip. There has to be a better way of presenting our sport to the public than bans, bans and more bans.
Let’s not beat about the bush: the B.H.A. have fucked-up this issue for the entirety of their existence. They have proved themselves incapable of producing whip reform that work in the real world of the final furlong. So many jockeys riding today have suffered shoulder injuries and shoulder surgery that maybe it is physically impossible for many of them, not withstanding how dedicated they are to changing their whip action, to conform to rules instigated by people who have never ridden a finish on anything more dynamic than the back of a settee.
I maintain that ‘one hit and that’s it’, is the way forward as everyone can count from zero to one and such an imposition requires no rule about ‘above shoulder height’ or where the strike lands on the horse. It would be a draconian rule but it would be draconian, and perhaps unfair, to all. Jockeys would rebel from such an imposition, of course, as would punters who believe horses go faster the more times a jockey cracks a horse’s rump with their pro-cush.
The B.H.A. believe, wrongly, they have achieved the right balance with its latest attempt to reform use of the whip and give themselves kudos for on-going dialogue with jockeys over the matter. Yet professional jockeys were so hacked-off with the new rules they took root a branch approach to their own leadership, believing their professional body was not engaging on their behalf with the B.H.A., the same executive committee that took sides in the Frost-Dunne dispute and made an unholy mess of that issue as well.
In the U.S. defenders of private ownership of firearms will say, ‘it is not guns that kill people but people who kill people’. It is a stupid, selfish argument in the aftermath of school and mall shootings. Take away the guns and the act of wholesale murder becomes far more difficult to achieve.
So, to return to the point in question. Why not take away the offensive weapon from the jockey. Instead of banning Frankie from the racecourse for 17-days, take away his whip for 17-days. Instead of banning a jockey from riding for breaching whip rules, for excess or over shoulder height or hitting in the wrong place, have them ride in races where they can carry a whip but not use it for anything other than preventing possible injury to their horse or other jockeys?
I have suggested many times before and will suggest, perhaps, many times in the future that there should be ‘hands and heels’ races for professional jockeys, as there are for apprentices. After all, what is the point of apprentices riding in races when they cannot use their whips if in later life they are subject to the same rules as their seniors?
The sport should be walking towards the day when a whip is carried but not used as a tool of ‘persuasion’. The ‘public licence’ will, eventually, be taken away. It might not be in my lifetime but you can be assured that wildlife documentaries that make it clear all animals are sentient beings will outsway any argument the B.H.A. can put forward to help preserve the sport.. ‘Animal Rising’ are right when they say man’s association with animals needs to be looked-at. That does not imply, of course, that a whole species of horse should be obliterated just because a few ignorant people take offence at people racing horses for a living. But we should take an inward look at ourselves, everyone of us, and that includes the B.H.A., jockeys, the whole racing industry.
Banning jockeys from earning a day-to-day living as punishment for small indiscretions, especially when the misdemeanour is caused by the actions of their mounts, is in need of a radical rethink. If a jockey is banned from using a whip for a period of time, it becomes the responsibility of owners and trainers whether that jockey can earn a riding fee. Without a whip, jockeys will be forced to drop their irons a few holes and learn the art of keeping a horse running in a straight line through the strength of their legs and body position, an art their forebears knew but which is lost to flat jockeys of today.

​I may be wrong but there seems to be a directive at the moment to ban as many jockeys as humanly possible. The ‘brutal’ whip bans imposed on Keilan Woods and Paula Muir by the B.H.A. last week under the ‘totting-up’ process give both the public a false impression of jockeys as ‘carpet-beaters’ and ammunition for the likes of ‘Animal Rising’ to help sustain their cause. On Tuesday, we will discover if any jockey breached the whip rules at Royal Ascot. I witnessed little to disturb me in any race last week but then I am not paid to analyse camera footage in search of breaches of the rules. Personally, I would prefer to see ever-increasing fines, including having the riding fee taken from them, imposed on jockeys rather than suspensions for whip offences. 30% deduction in prize-money from winning a race at Royal Ascot would hurt far more than a 4-day ban.
I suspect P.J. McDonald received a suspension for Pyledriver’s misdemeanours in the Hardwick, other than that it was the bans imposed on Hollie Doyle and Frankie Dettori that caused me ire. 
My problem with the 4-day ban given to Holly Doyle is this: as with Pyledriver, the incident was caused by the actions of Bradsell. I believe Hollie Doyle did all she could in the time-frame available to her to keep her horse on a straight line. You can argue in P.J. McDonald’s case that as Pyledriver is a known offender, it would be wise of whoever is riding him not to use the whip on him. In a case like Bradsell, all a jockey can do is react to the sudden actions of the horse beneath them. The ‘offence’ in this case happened right on the finishing line, though there was ‘intimidation’, as Jason Hart described it, during the final 100-yards. No one can say with certainty that Highfield Princess would not have got upsides Bradsell if that ‘intimidation’ had not occurred and might or might not have ‘outbattled’ him in the shadow of the winning post. It was ‘the opinion’ of the stewards that the result was unaffected by either the ‘intimidation’ or Bradsell suddenly veering towards the exit gate in the final strides of the race. It is conjecture. My ire, though, was raised by the suspension imposed on the rider. If Highfield Princess was not denied a winning opportunity by the riding of Hollie Doyle and the bump on the line did not affect the result, why impose the ban? To claim she should have done x y z in the micro-second of the moment, when she did do everything in her power to keep the horse straight, is, to me, an inadequate conclusion. If her riding did not affect the result, why should she be banned? Pyledriver knocked another horse into another horse, that was a dangerous incident which might have been avoided if P.J. had not used his whip. In comparison to the incident caused by Bradsell, the Pyledriver incident was 4 or 5-times more dangerous. Will P.J. get a 12-day ban for an incident that was, it can be argued, out of his control?
Frankie’s ban was also subject to conjecture. He chose to steer his mount to the rail, when he had the option to stay straight, a manoeuvre that caused the jockey behind to snatch-up his horse to avoid a major incident. This was jockey error and a ban was inevitable. If Hollie received a 4-day ban for something that was beyond her control and which she had a micro-second to react to and rectify, is 9-days right for an incident that was wholly jockey error? Personally, although the professionals think the ban will be reduced, I don’t think it will be overturned on appeal. To me, the ban P.J. McDonald receives should be less than one Frankie received as he reacted to a situation, whereas Frankie was fully in control of his actions.
Now then, black type. Too many fillies and mares achieve black type on the cheap. For instance, if a filly finishes last of 4 in a listed or Group race it will receive black type in a sales catalogue, as will her progeny when sold in the sales-ring. If a filly or mare wins a fiercely-competitive handicap at Royal Ascot with double-digit number of runners, black type is not awarded, a situation that seems bizarre to me if ‘black type’ is supposed to signify higher achievement on the racecourse. 
Finally, an everlasting gripe of mine. Last week bookmakers shared their profits from the Britannia Stakes between six charities, all noble and worthwhile causes, I have no doubt. Yet Royal Ascot is a celebration of the horse (and yes, the clothes horses on parade between the races) and yet no one thought it right to donate the money raised to an equine welfare charity, if only for the right sort of publicity it might get. If horse racing itself cannot financially support the work of the Rehabilitation of Racehorses, as an example, how can we expect the public to put their hands in their pockets. On the last day of Royal Ascot, Canute lost his life in pursuit of our entertainment. A tragedy or merely bad publicity for the sport? Every charity day that takes place on a racecourse should involve raising money for either equine charities or the Injured Jockey Fund. Privately people can support any charity of their choosing. Publicly, the sport should look after its own.

​Let us not forget that ‘Magic Thursday’ began with a 150/1 winner. Personally, I love a shock winner. There is a peculiar kind magic in itself when a member of the disregarded gets one over on the highly considered.
Of course, the highlight of the meeting, the longest-lasting memory, will be the first success at the Royal meeting for King Charles. His mother, the late Queen Elisabeth – when will I stop missing her presence at Ascot and Epsom – achieved her first success at Royal Ascot only weeks after her coronation, also in a handicap. Now, her son has also achieved a first success as monarch weeks after his coronation. I hope she was looking down and forming opinions on where to go next with Desert Hero. St. Leger, possibly?
In the inevitable focus of attention on the King and Queen, it should not be overlooked what a brilliant ride Desert Hero got from Tom Marquand, possibly the ride of the week. Nor should it be overlooked what a willing partner Tom had in Desert Hero. It was not a straight-forward victory, there was no coming with a wet sail to mow-down the opposition, easing up at the line, to it. Tom had to change course at least twice and Desert Hero had to squeeze through gaps a less gallant horse would have backed away from and then he put down his head and battled his way to be first passed the post. In the moment of victory, the Queen brushed away a tear and the King looked genuinely thrilled to own a Royal Ascot winner. We can only hope on the morning after the afternoon before his obligation to maintain the royal participation in horse racing has graduated to bone-fide enthusiasm for the sport and a desire for greater success in the future.
For two-days Hollie Doyle held the bragging rights over hubby Tom. As the first female jockey to win a Group 1 at Royal Ascot, she has made a mark that will be recorded in the history of the sport for as long as the sport survives. Tom may have only won a handicap and a Group 3 thus far at Royal Ascot 2023, yet he provided the King with the first of, I hope, many successes at Royal Ascot, ensuring it will be Tom who will appear on the front pages on the national newspapers. They appear to be too supported of each other for childish chiding, but Tom, for now, is a national hero.
Frankie, of course, is writing his own scripts these days. Courage Mon Ami, even if he did go into the Ascot Gold Cup with three-wins from three-runs, was, in my book, an unlikely winner. It just isn’t done for such an inexperienced horse to win an Ascot Gold Cup. The Derby winner had more runs in his career than the Gosdens’ latest Gold Cup superstar. In fact, every classic winner this season had appeared on the racecourse more times prior to their classic success than Courage Mon Ami. Thady has mighty shoes to fill once his name alone is on the training licence.
Of course, Frankie being Frankie had to step on toes during his parade of jubilation. His harsh 9-day ban imposed by the Ascot stewards on Tuesday might be nothing compared to his incarceration in the Tower of London for breaching royal protocol by kissing the Queen. I dare say, Camilla took it in good spirit but the precedent cannot be allowed to become established for fear of someone far less innocent than Frankie attempting the same closeness. For this sport, our Royal family is precious; we need their presence on a racecourse at every available occasion. I hope Frankie offers his apology and the matter will be laid to rest. At least he didn’t pick the Queen up and twirl her around as he did Lady Bamford after the Oaks. Small mercies, perhaps.
Again, as with Tom Marquand, the success overshadowed the great ride Frankie gave his willing partner. Nothing fancy or as forceful as Marquand’s, just a perfectly conducted tactical exhibition of his brilliance in the saddle. The Gosdens’ will never lack for big-race success but they will find it near-impossible to replace Frankie. Only Ryan Moore is his equal and he is very unlikely to sever his ties with Aidan O’Brien. I couldn’t see Buick leaving Godolphin, though James Doyle might, though he is on the heavy side. And it is too high-profile an assignment for any of the young riders marking their name at the moment. So, would Marquand be tempted to ditch Somerville Lodge for Clarehaven?
Then, as if Gold Cup Day couldn’t get any better, and in accordance with the magic hour back in 2018 (I shouldn’t make stabs in the dark when it comes to dates and years) when Frodon won for Bryony Frost at Cheltenham, a female jockey put the icing on the tastiest of flat racing cakes when the divine party-girl Hayley Turner won the Britannia Handicap on a horse with the same spirit as Frodon. I loved the way Docklands stretched out his neck and raced for all his worth to the winning post.
The thing with Hayley, as it is with Bryony, it’s what she gives after the race that is the delight. She is buoyant of spirit without coming across as either self-important or overly-ambitious. She has accepted her place in the sport and remains grateful for the opportunities that come her way. It is why the sport must continue to promote and encourage female jockeys; as with Hayley and Bryony, they bring an extra-dimension to the sport. I hope when Docklands progresses to Group races that Hayley keeps the ride. As with Frankie, she is irreplaceable.

​‘Love’ – strong feeling or attachment, tenderness, protectionism for another person.
Or – warm interest in and enjoyment of something.
‘Love is only one of many passions’. To quote Samuel Johnson.
The word ‘love’, as with ‘legend’, ‘genius’ and ‘hate’, are not only easy to go-to nouns, but words that over-egg the pudding of emotion in want of being expressed. If I say ‘I love Joanna Mason’, for instance, love is not being expressed from the heart but as a token of admiration and expression of respect. When I say ‘I love Joanna Mason’ there is no need for her to go immediately to a solicitor to take out a restraining order. I also do not avail myself of the services of social media, so there is no need to concern herself about the blood-curdling prospect of eulogies of devotion appearing on Facebook or Twitter. I am also old enough to be her grandfather, though nowhere near as old as the grandfather she is obviously devoted to, the legendary Mick Easterby.
Firstly, let’s get the bloody obvious out-of-the-way: she scrubs up real fine, doesn’t she? She is a beautifully understated woman and you could knock me down with a wren’s feather if she is not either married or in a long-term relationship with the most of fortunate young man. I care not as it’s not my business to enquire.
I suspect she is being ‘marketed’ or ‘publicised’ at the moment as she has appeared recently on ‘Luck on Sunday’ and in several YouTube videos, including an interview for ‘The Sporting Life’. The spiral fracture to her fibula – done that myself and it rarely ever heals 100% but is a non-weight-bearing bone so it is not a matter of concern– has given her the time and opportunity to ‘get herself out there’, putting to good use a face the camera loves and a personality the viewer with instantly fall in love with.
So far, lazy, inexcusable, use of ‘legendary’,’ loves’ and ‘fall in love’.
Within six-days of the fall on the gallops – caused by three pigeons, the snipers of the animal world that perhaps cause short-stirruped jockeys the most amount of embarrassment in a calendar year – our heroine was back in the gym at Jack Berry House committing herself whole-heartedly to upper body strength work-outs.
If you go to her uncle David Easterby’s website, her grandfather extols her virtues as you would expect a loving grandfather would do. Her main fault, according to Mick, is that she doesn’t delegate enough, preferring to do everything herself. It is also not unusual for her to ride six lots in a morning before going racing, not only to ride but on occasion to also lead up and, if I understood Mick correctly, will drive the horsebox to the racecourse. On one occasion she did all of the above and when she got home refused supper and went for a 5-mile run instead. That is dedication to the cause.
I believe she is wholly underrated as a jockey. She rode a winner for William Haggas at the Shergar Cup last season and he admitted afterwards that he was surprised at the quality of ride she provided. As a lightweight jockey there is none better and she should be given more opportunities by trainers other than the ones presently making use of her talents, especially in big race handicaps.
She has a university degree and was a successful point-to-rider before she broke bones in her back – it was ‘nothing’, apparently, and in a month she was race-riding again – and became one of the best amateur jockeys on the flat. It wouldn’t faze her to ride show-jumping or eventing as she is a natural horsewoman. She also, I believe, has her own hunter, which she also exercises. These ‘workaday’ jockeys make us ‘ordinary Joes’ seem real sloths, don’t they? Oh, to be young again! To bounce out of bed with the purpose of someone who has a life worth having!
All the above, of course, would apply to dozens of jockeys presently riding, all of whom are under-used and underrated and yet do not have the benefit of being a member of the Easterby clan. But that is life, isn’t it? It’s not the hand you are dealt with but how you play the hand and no one can say she hasn’t rolled up her sleeves and put her shoulder to the wheel.
Yes, I am a bit of a slut when it comes to saying nice words about female jockeys. First there was the divine Hayley Turner, then I moved on to Josephine Gordon, then Nicola Currie became the object of my ‘strong attachment’, and I’ll always remain devoted to Bryony, but I think I’ll settle on Joanna Mason as my favourite on the flat for a good while to come. I’m sure if I live long enough to be considered ‘an uneconomic eater’ another talented and unsung female jockey will come along to usurp my ‘warm interest’ in Miss Mason but for now my ‘tender feelings’ are in support on the north’s finest.
Not that my platonic interest in her career is any practical use to her. But as of now, if and when I win the Lottery, the 100-grand Dubawi or Frankel yearling I will buy will go to David Easterby to be trained. Yes, I live in a fantasy world. What do you expect, I’m 69 and a ¼ -years old. The real world is a heap of crap and I have nothing but the grave to look forward to and lovely ladies like Joanna and Bryony – I split my time between them, I’m sure they understand – allow me an attachment to something worth living for. My passion for horse racing.

​Horse racing is more and more marginalised by mainstream media. I.T.V., with its defence and promotion of the sport is horse racing’s greatest, perhaps only true, ally at the moment. Their production at Royal Ascot this week will be up with the best televised sporting action of the year. Ed Chamberlain will be professional and enthusiastic, dressed to the nines in clothes that would look satirical anywhere outside of a church wedding, especially so, though, in temperatures hitting the mid-seventies when common-sense would decree men strip down to their shirt-sleeves. Bravo to him and his male cohorts on the podium. I would not survive twenty-minutes under such brutal conditions.
As with all major race-meetings, though, a cloud of confrontation will hang over the King’s racecourse this week and will not dissipate until the riders dismount after the final race of the meeting. This, sadly, will be the way of things for our sport for years to come.
‘Animal Rising’ present the sport with more than mere menace. It is not a fringe movement. It is not a band of misguided brethren avowed to do good for the world. They are affiliated to ‘Stop Oil’, ‘Black Lives Matter’, ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and are shadow-funded by the Soros family and a member of the Getty family. They have finance and they have a cause. A dangerous combination.
If they don’t get us now, they may well get us through our children, or your children, as I have played no part in furthering the survival of our species. In the U.S. and Australia, perhaps Great Britain, though I have seen no evidence for it, the LGBT, and possibly xyz, community have infiltrated the class rooms of primary schools. The education of the very young exposed to transgender politics and in one video children as young as six or seven encouraged to give dollar-bills to gyrating trans dancers. I kid you not. Win over the kids and in time you have won over the adults. What if Animal Rising were to be allowed into the classrooms of Great Britain? 
As I see the situation, it is folly to ignore Animal Rising in hope they will eventually go away, and dangerous to engage with them without a counter-offensive strategy. Running away has never won a battle, let alone a war.
To quote the B.H.A. after rejecting Animal Rising’s proposal for a t.v. debate: ‘the B.H.A. does not believe it is possible to reach common ground and is concerned that continuing to engage in national debate will play into the group’s hands’. While there is no dispute there is no common ground between horse racing and the aims of Animal Rising and never can be, warring factions always end-up around the peace table. When outside agendas have been met, Ukraine and Russia will find themselves negotiating a peaceful settlement. It is inevitable. It is the way wars tend to end. Talk, talk is better than war, war, to misquote Sir Winston Churchill. Boy, could we do with him around now!
Which side of the divide possesses the moral high ground here? If the B.H.A. are secure in the belief that horse racing is a fair and honourable sport, that the horse is cared-for to the enth degree by their human partners and can argue that many thousands of people are employed directly or indirectly in the industry, why not go on a national forum and try to expose the holes in Animal Rising’s views? What was the phrase the B.H.A. used when they asked people to give their opinions on the whip and its use? ‘The public licence’, was it? We only survive if the public continue to licence the sport by its acceptance.
Animals are not rising up, by the way. It is not the horse that is up in arms. It is a small group of people who are manipulated to do the work of those who wish to bring down society to reset it in image of themselves. Animal Rising are idealists. They believe they have a right to abolish any aspect of society that offends them. All round the world animals are used and abused, animals in far more urgent need of the protection of those people who sit in vegan cafes and demand the B.H.A. do as they say or else, than racehorses.
I do not believe playing hide and seek with Animal Rising is the way forward, especially if, as expected, the Labour Party win the next election. Our trump card is the revenue the horse racing industry brings to the Exchequer. Not even a socialist government will be able to afford to turn its back on the regular stream of money that the sport annually delivers. But Labour, as an act of appeasement, may ban jump racing, with the knock-on effect that will put eventing and show-jumping in jeopardy.
The debacles at Epsom and Brighton recently were mere bullets in the foot when compared to the possible bullet in the head if Animal Rising gain traction within the Labour Party.

​Unlike the majority of racing books I buy and read, David Owen’s ‘No Snail’ is brand spanking new and so there should be no difficulties involved in tracking down a copy.
When I saw the book reviewed in the Racing Post, I knew immediately I had to have it included in my small horse racing library. This was a book, I anticipated holding in my hand, to sit beside Ivor Herbert’s book on Red Rum or Michael Tanner’s book on Spanish Steps. Sadly, ‘No Snail’ falls short of the quality of Ivor Herbert’s mighty tome and is not a patch on Michael Tanner’s love-letter to Spanish Steps.
That is not to say I regret buying ‘No Snail’. Far from it. L’Escargot deserved a book of his life. It was long overdue. And David Owen should be praised for filling a gap in the history of National Hunt racing. His prize-winning book about Foinavon is one of my favourites. Foinavon, too, deserved to be recognised for his contribution to the legacy and history of National Hunt racing and we have David Owen to thank for righting the wrong.
The disappointment, I suspect, is because the anticipation generated by the review in The Racing Post could only be fulfilled by the sort of book Ivor Herbert wrote about Red Rum. It is a comparison most racing books published in our more impoverished days cannot hope to equal. Ivor Herbert’s book started from Red Rum’s birth and meticulously documented his whole career. Herbert’s book on Arkle, was a life’s journey, from birth to death.
David Owen’s book is not a meticulous history of the life of L’Escargot but a long overview of the races he competed in. Little is learned of the in-between days, how he was trained, his character, the people around him on a daily basis. Of course, L’Escargot’s lived long time ago. Red Rum out-lived him, for instance. It would have been an arduous task for the author to find contemporaries of the main players still alive today. I would have liked to have had the Carberry family quoted in the book. After all, they remain racing royalty in Ireland and Tommy must have spoken at length to his famous sons and daughter about L’Escargot and Raymond Guest, the owner of the great horse.
And in achievements, L’Escargot was a great of National Hunt racing. He won two Cheltenham Gold Cups, plus his Grand National victory, the main thrust of this book. He won other races, though little of note and that is why, I believe, his memory has been consigned to history. Kinloch Brae, a good horse of lesser achievements than L’Escargot, has a race run still in memorial of him. As does Captain Christie, I believe. Flyingbolt did not win a Gold Cup or a Grand National and he has a race run in his honour. Though Flyingbolt was without doubt, in his prime, one of the greatest chasers of all-time, the only horse handicapped anywhere close to Arkle. Yet L’Escargot, I believe, is not honoured or remembered similarly. Two Cheltenham Gold Cups and a Grand National – list the horses through time with similar achievements?
David Owen’s book at least begins to right that wrong and we should thank him, as should the descendants of the people whose lives shone more brightly because of what L’Escargot achieved on behalf of their forebears. ‘No Snail’ deserves a place on the shelves of anyone with an interest in either the Grand National or National Hunt racing. And let’s not forget, though David Owen failed to emphasise the point, L’Escargot was competing in Grand Nationals when the quality of some of the opposition was of a higher quality than at any time since. Red Rum is the greatest horse of Aintree and in receipt of weight, it has to be said, L’Escargot emphatically got the better of him. No fluke. No luck. Won on merit.
L'Escargot deserves his legend immortalised in print. I just hope the Guests gave the old horse a grave and a headstone at his death aged 21. He deserved nothing less. Indeed, he deserved so much more.