furthermore ....

​I shouldn’t, I know, be forever critical of the B.H.A. Even if they make criticism so much easier to supply than praise, which I would prefer to send in their direction. The hurdle that prevents me from being ‘on-side’ is that they do not care-for and love this sport as I do, and if they do care-for the sport it is only so they can earn a living from it. Their care is only as relevant as the length of their employment contract.
Peter Savill, on the other hand, does care for the sport and any criticism I level at his intervention into the crisis that presently holds horse racing in its grip is on the grounds that his solution is interlaced with the term ‘premierisation’ and his pre-emptive defensive position when the term ‘elitist’ is used in criticism of his proposals. Any proposal that leaves behind the bottom tier of our sport will not garner my support. I also fear my criticism comes from a baseline of ignorance, a common fault I have not in 68-years managed to evade.
A prime example of my ignorance of his proposal, highlighted by Lee Mottershead’s excellent column in today’s Racing Post, is that he proposes fewer races at the top-table of the sport and more at the opposite end, bulldozing my fear that he proposed to build this new sparkling racing house from the roof downwards, leaving the sport vulnerable to the certainty of collapse due to having no solid foundation. The racing calendar should be shaped like a pyramid, with the lowest levels supporting the global events that form the top tier, with, I suggest, given its familiarity around the world, the Grand National at it very apex.
Banded races have led to the problem of small fields, along with, sadly, the decline in horses available to the sport. I am not knocking banded races as such, and they make life easier for handicappers, no doubt, but the tighter the banding the fewer horses are available that fall into that band. 3-runner handicaps, as at Newmarket last Saturday, represent a failure of the sport. Of course, having six-meetings on one day would be no help when it comes to field sizes, with 4 other similar(ish) races at Thirsk, Hamilton and Goodwood vying for the same pool of horses. I’m just suggesting it might help matters, not solve matters, if there were more variety in race conditions, with handicaps unrelated to ratings and more 0 to a hundred. Though the solution to small fields – we all can recognise an elephant in the room when we see one – is too much racing. This is definitely a case of less is more.
And though I accept my overall condemnation of Peter Savill’s manifesto was hasty and ill-judged, I remain sceptical when it comes to his defensive position regarding allegations of ‘elitism’. ‘There are a lot of people who are not super-rich at the top level’ is the response of someone as ignorant of the situation as I am. The mega-rich, and Peter Savill may fall into that category, have no conception of what constitutes the lower classes of society. They lunch at fancy restaurants as a matter of course, a £3,000 Panama hat is far from a luxury for them and buying a new car every year is just a given. The super-rich do not know what it is like to have coins in their pocket. The days when a successful butcher or hairdresser could have a horse in training with a local trainer have long gone. That said, heritage handicaps can fall to the smaller training establishments and the one-horse owner, so in that respect the Savill manifesto may not be as elitist as I labelled it.
Two other matters to mention. Making a better fist of Sunday racing is the weak link in the Savill proposal as Sundays are the main day for racing in Ireland and France. I have said for many a long year, mainly in connection with jump racing but it equally can apply to the flat: a two-day meeting, as with Newbury’s Ladbroke Trophy meeting, should be Saturday and Sunday, not Friday/Saturday. Three-day meetings should end on the Sunday and so on. Oh, and what constitutes a ‘good race’ anyway? And who decides? The finish of the Stewards Cup was closer and more exciting, as handicaps of all bandings tend to be, than either the Sussex or Nassau Stakes. It’s in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?
Also, small fields are afflicting U.S. racing with only 3-runners in The Jim Dandy Stakes at Saratoga over the weekend and six in the Alfred G.Vanderbilt (Grade 1) handicap. The former worth close to a quarter of a million dollars to the winner.
Oh, finally, before I forget, can the sport stop fixating on the drop in racecourse attendance. Horse racing is a rich man’s sport, or at least that is the public perspective, and the cost-of-living increase is sapping the working man’s disposable income. It might cost a prospective racegoer a hundred-quid at the moment just to fill the car with fuel, let alone to pay get in, to bet and so on and so on. If racecourse managers want to fill the grandstands it might be an idea to give away discounted tickets for people living in local postcodes and free entry for the elderly.