Question: doesn’t it go against the spirit and heritage of a race when the winners and placed horses in races designated as classic trials are not considered by their connections as either experienced enough for the classic itself or they have a preference to wait for Royal Ascot or a race in France or Ireland? Or indeed anywhere but Epsom. I am referring, of course, to the Musidora at York this week but my comment refers to any classic trial for any of the classics.
There was a time that if an owner sold a horse with classic entries those entries lapsed as the new owner had not paid for the initial fees and was not eligible to run the horse in races the horse was previously entered for at the time of the change of ownership. That came to be considered anachronistic and detrimental to the sport and entries transferred with the horse to the new owner. I think the time has come to consider changing the long-established system whereby horses are entered for the classics as foals as in the modern age it is as anachronistic as engagements becoming void when a horse is sold. I realise a good percentage of the prize money pot for the classics is drawn from the first entry stage, when these blue-bloodied thoroughbreds are still skipping about the paddocks with their mothers, or at least soon after. But with sponsorship now accounting for a big chuck of the prize money – and can anyone claim the Epsom Derby is more respected if it has a million-quid first prize than if it were half that amount? – I think the spirit of the sport is being compromised by continuing with a system determined at the time of Admiral Rous when the sport was very much the preserve of the aristocracy. The present system leaves us with the main trial for the Derby, the Dante Stakes, being won by a horse not even entered in the Derby, clouding the aftermath excitement with ‘will the owner stump-up the £85,000 supplementary fee?’ Not to mention the trainer hesitant to commit to Epsom as sixteen days between the Dante and the Derby may not be enough time for the winner to recover his full strength to be able to show himself in his true colours at Epsom? Which is another subject to be debated? Why have a racing schedule that compromises both the Dante and the Derby when thought and planning would ensure at least a further week between the two races. If the Epsom Derby and Oaks are to maintain their blue riband status in the world of racing it is beholden on the powers-that-be to protect both races from the shortcomings in both the entry system and the foibles of race-planning. At York this week barely any of the major players in the Musidora are intended runners for the Oaks, the winner of the Dante is not even entered in the Derby and the runner-up, though bred to stay the Derby distance, will not be running at Epsom as sporting considerations are second-bested by the need to protect stallion value. My second thought may be a little unfair on John Gosden, though in general on the flat sporting considerations are negated by protection of investment. When the Queen receives her diary for the year, she starts by pencilling in Royal Ascot and I suspect the Epsom Derby as no engagement, within reason, supersedes the importance to her favourite race-meetings. Race-planners should take her lead and pencil in the same dates and work forward and backwards from Epsom and Royal Ascot to ensure there is adequate time between, in this case, York and Epsom, to ensure genuine classic horses can be primed to the height of their fitness for both meetings. There is so much emphasis these days on the importance of ‘turnover’, about the integrity of bookmaking and punters rights, that to have conjecture leading up to what is perceived, though it certainly is not, as the ‘greatest horse-race in the world’ – how they must cringe or indeed laugh at such a claim in Melbourne, Kentucky or Paris – on whether the owners of the Dante winner will pay the large supplementary fee to run, cannot be in the interests of the sport. If the present archaic system is to continue the ‘win and you are in’ condition should be applied to all of the Derby and Oaks trials. This Derby this year will be massively poorer if Telecaster does not run and the result will be diminished if Telecaster runs poorly if it proves the York race took too much out of him. It seems to me that the only owners, and by default trainer, who take the Epsom classics at all seriously are Coolmore. They are not teasing punters with ‘will the 2,000 Guineas winner run in the Derby’. Not that they need him, of course. It is all very well churning out the old maxim of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ but why wait for the bolts to rust or the wood to warp? Think of the Epsom Derby as the flower meadow of the flat season and then on Derby morning go in search of a flower meadow. The Epsom Derby, like flower meadows, deserve to be protected. Change the entry system, ensure an appropriate amount of time between York and Epsom and include ‘win and you are in’ as a condition for all of the recognised classic trials and prevent the farrago of ‘will the owner stump-up the supplementary fee?’
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
GOING TO THE LAST
A HORSE RACING RELATED COLLECTION OF SHORT STORIES E-BOOK £1.99 PAPERBACK. £8.99 CLICK HERE Archives
November 2024
Categories |