​The B.H.A.’s proposal to limit trainers to a maximum of four-runners per race is sound. I don’t like it as it is a form of discrimination, though I am forced to concede that in the present circumstance where the gap between the super-trainers and the hard-grafting smaller trainers grows by the season, it is a brake in need of administering.
Why the B.H.A. are going down this road and not the Irish racing authority is the real debate here as this subject is far more of a problem in the Emerald Isle than this side of the pond. Perhaps the B.H.A. had visions of Gordon Elliott having fourteen-runners in a single race at the Cheltenham Festival or, more likely, they have to come realise that by limiting the number of runners in the Grand National to 34 there was a favourite’s chance of having over half the field trained by Elliott and Willie Mullins between them. Perhaps, in private, Aintree and the B.H.A. have conceded that in forever tinkering with the Grand National they are slowly killing the golden goose by a thousand cuts and cannot risk having the race won year by year by one of the super-powers of the sport and further diminishing the public’s affection for the race?
Limiting the number of runners any one trainer can have in prestige races is worth trying, though I cannot see the Coolmore ‘lads’ being pleased about it, given they like to have as many runners as possible in the Epsom Derby, for example. This cap on runners could, conceivably, have a detrimental effect on betting turnover if Aidan O’Brien is limited to four-runners when if he were allowed six, each-way betting would be available to punters. I believe Coolmore having five or six runners in a classic is a different problem to Elliott or Mullins dominating a race at the Cheltenham Festival.
Also, during periods when the weather intervenes and, as of now, there have been wholesale abandonments, especially towards the end of the season, trainers might have a dozen well-bred youngsters in need of a run before going out-to-grass for the summer. To have to choose which horses to run would be an added dilemma, having to tell an owner that it is his or her preference to run other owners’ horses.
This ‘rule of four’ must come with a caveat that in periods after drought, flood or frost, some races should be except to allow trainers the opportunity to run horses desperately in need of racecourse experience. Or indeed to get horses ready for the prestige races to come.
The B.H.A. are in consultation with all relevant stakeholders about the proposal. Quite why they are consulting, though, is beyond me. We already have a fair idea who will be against and who will be for the proposal: the super-power owners and trainers will want to pour cold water on the proposal; the smaller syndicates, owners and trainers will be wholeheartedly behind for the proposal. I would imagine jockeys associated with the super-power trainers and owners will have misgivings as potentially the 4-runner rule will further limit their chance to getting on a lively outsider and potential winner of the Grand National, for instance.
One of my main moans about the B.H.A. is that it prefers ‘talk’ to ‘data’. They implement whip guidelines with regularity without the support of data from trialling each and every possible variation from no whip to a free-for-all. Data moves science. Data proves and disproves theories. The four-runner rule is worth trialling, especially with the Cheltenham Festival and the Grand National, amazingly, already on the horizon. Just bring in the rule for a trial period and let it fly its course. 
One benefit of the four-runner rule will be that owners of horses trained by the super-powers with, say, the Grand National in mind, will be forced to send them to other trainers in order to, perhaps, achieve a life’s ambition of having a runner in the big race. That, if only for a short period, can only be of benefit to the trainer lucky enough to get a new horse in the yard, perhaps a lively outsider for the world’s greatest horse race.

​The Becher Chase was won in fine style yesterday by Chambard, a first winning ride in the race for a female jockey, Lucy Turner. 
The Becher is an old established race that during Aintree’s troubled times was lost to the calendar, to be reinstated in the 1990’s, mainly to give Grand National type horses a try over the big fences prior to running in the big race in April. Yet, year in, year on, it fails to be a significant Grand National trial and has become just a race over the National fences, albeit an important and valuable race. But what is the point of the Becher Chase if it is not a true trial for the Grand National, a reflection of what is to come in April?
The owners of Chambard spoke in the aftermath of their success of their ambition to have a runner in the Grand National, yet, even though he looked every inch a National-horse, there is no certainty, with the field now reduced to 34, that Chambard will have a high enough rating to make the cut. He might, of course, get in, especially as the type of horse Aintree aspires to running in the race rarely get to line-up, but it is easily envisaged, as Chambard was nowhere near top-weight on Saturday, that come the five-day declaration date, he’ll be No. 40 in wait of seven-withdrawals for the chance to compete.
For the Becher to remain relevant as a Grand National trial, it must become a win and you are in race. It’s a no-brainer, even if the B.H.A. and Aintree are against the idea as it might allow a horse to run in the race with an official rating well below their arbitrary cut-off point of 144, is it? Venetia Williams should be allowed to train Chambard specifically for the Grand National, certain in the knowledge that if the horse is fit and well, he’ll get a run. It’s time Suleka Varma and her bosses at Aintree woke-up to the fact that for the survival of the Grand National the race needs to attract the right horses, not those with high ratings but out-of-form or out of love with the game.

At the I.H.A. awards ceremony last week something extraordinary happened that did not raise much of an eyebrow this side of the pond. The Ride of the Year award was given to a 7lb female apprentice with very few wins on the board. The name Amy-Jo Hayes would not strike a loud chord with people outside of Irish racing. She rides infrequently when compared to Siobhan Routledge, the only female flat rider in Ireland even close to losing her claim. Routledge is down to claiming 3lbs, with no other female apprentice anywhere close to her achievement.
I cannot comment on Amy-Jo Hayes’ ability in the saddle or whether her weight is an obstacle to achieving a greater number of rides. What I do know about her is that in a country with many top-class jockeys and with Ryan Moore a regular figure in Irish weigh-rooms, she won the ‘ride of the year award’. So why aren’t trainers in Ireland giving her the opportunities she needs to be able demonstrate her skills? 
As we know, the Irish racing calendar makes it a competitive environment for jockeys, all jockeys, not only female riders and the female shouldn’t be given opportunities unobtainable for their male colleagues. Yet given that through the jumps season in Ireland there are quite a number of female only races, isn’t it time a few female-restricted flat races were added to the race programme? It’s tough for young male riders trying to come up through the ranks; it seems as an outsider that it is a hundred-times more difficult for females. And one final thing; it is unfair on the young female apprentice, in the small number of ‘ladies’ races, to have to take on the experienced, older, female amateur riders, many of whom will have experience of riding at the big festival meetings, including Cheltenham and Aintree and who long connections to the larger stables.

The M.P. George Eustice, no doubt in search of making a point that was not exactly in support of horse racing, made the reasonable assumption in a parliamentary debate the other day that the racing industry should be responsible for the support and care of racehorses retired from the sport. His ideas to support his speech were off-beam, of course, believing owners should race their horses for trophies but no prize-money and that sponsorship alone should be enough to keep horse-racing afloat. Idiotic ideas from a man with an agenda, I suspect.
But his point is valid and here is my suggestion for fulfilling his aim. A tax-cum-levy on the sale of all horses sold at public auction. Half-a-percent should do it, I would think. Yearlings and broodmares can fetch 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5-million +, and half-a-percent going towards the care and support of retired racehorses would be insignificant to both the vendor or purchaser and yet would snap in two a stick that Animal Aid and others constantly beat us with. It seems to me highly appropriate that the sale of foals, yearlings and broodmares, especially, should provide the finance to ensure retired racehorses are cared-for in their lives outside of the racing industry. This is a racing industry problem, not a racing alone problem. Breeders make money from the sale of the product; they make a good living and achieve fame from their success; they should be involved in the solution to a problem they kick-start.

​I fancy Midnight River for the Coral Gold Cup.
I doubt if he will win give the Skeltons victory for a second consecutive year, though, as the odds on the meeting going ahead are as long as me finishing a marathon in daylight. I have argued the case for years, with no one else, seemingly, wishing to engage in the debate. So, it was good to hear Ed Chamberlain try to start a chat at Newbury yesterday on the rank stupidity of racing on the Friday and putting in jeopardy the running of the most important staying handicap chase outside of the Grand National in this country the following day.
Friday, you see, is ‘corporate day’ and racecourse executives believe it is more important than the prestige races they are blessed to host. Why Sunday cannot become ‘corporate day’ is beyond me, though I dare say Newbury and others have good reason to play stick in the mud on this issue.
Yes, I know, with the unaltering arbitrary nature of the British weather, it is as likely for inclement weather to cause the abandonment of a race-meeting on any day of the week. My counter to this sensible statement is this: if, for example, the Newbury fixture slated this year and every year for a Friday and Saturday were rearranged to a Saturday and Sunday fixture, with the Coral Gold Cup the feature on the first day, it would give Newbury wriggle-room if frost, snow or the wrath of God stopped the meeting going ahead on the Saturday, with Sunday free for the race to be instantly rearranged. It is called a safety-net, something that a Friday/Saturday fixture cannot have. This issue, in wintertime, at least, has the potential to run a horse and carriage through the B.H.A.’s golden plan for the survival of the sport that is called ‘premierisation’. The ‘safety-net’ to betting turn-over that is all-weather flat racing is nothing more than a bedsheet pulled tight in comparison to the betting revenue that comes from a competitive handicap like the Coral Gold Trophy or a day’s racing from Cheltenham.
With finances in racing as they are at the moment, with attendance at racecourses suffering due to the manufactured cost-of-living crisis, it would make sense, at least to me or anyone having to cope with rising household bills etc, to have fewer two-day major meetings through the winter months and to think about Saturday mega-days. Yes, this one-day would be subject to whims of nature, but I would contend, if the meeting was called-off on the Saturday, that, if the racecourse was raceable on the Sunday, that the meeting could be transferred to the following day, with or without t.v. coverage.
With the money saved from staging a two-day meeting, the Coral Gold Cup could become the centre-piece of a mega-Saturday, especially as the Fighting Fifth and Rehearsal Chase at Newcastle are annually run on the same day.
Losing the former Hennessey, with its historic place in National Hunt history, would be a major loss to trainers, owners and jockeys. And to punters, bookmakers and to racing’s finances. Everything should be in place to give important and historic races every chance possible to be staged on their slated day in the calendar and at the moment this stupid ‘actually we can’t race on the Saturday and the Sunday as Friday is our corporate day’ attitude is helping to beleaguer further our already over-burdened sport. Ireland would simply rearrange the whole meeting for the following week, just to ensure the races get run. The whole meeting, mind you, with no cherry-picking of the better-quality races.
This issue gets my blood-up as it seems that neither Newbury nor the B.H.A. think Coral Gold Cup Day is worth every effort to stage.
One more thing that boils my blood: The Gerry Feilden Hurdle is this year named ‘the Now Bet In Race with Coral Intermediate Handicap Hurdle’. Rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Not! I get it, Coral sponsor the meeting. The Coral name will decorate the racecourse at every spot where a t.v. camera will show them to the television audience. But why can’t this notable race simply be titled the ‘Coral Gerry Fielden Hurdle’? Doesn’t everyone in racing already know that it is possible to bet in race by now? Perhaps Coral need to add ‘on your mobile device’ to the title so that even complete idiots like me fully understand the meaning behind the title.
A beautiful sport, with the most magnificent animal species on the planet, made as desperate-looking and ugly as Edvard Munch’s ‘ The Scream’ by men in dull-coloured suits in want of netting custom. Wouldn’t the ‘Gerry Fielden Hurdle’ HOSTED BY CORALS be less distracting, more sensitive?
‘CORPORATE’ – imagine an old man shaking his head, a look of sadness purveyed throughout his face and body – and you will know how this piece of diatribe ends.

​The risk to the survival of horse racing in this country cannot be over-stated. To save a soul, the Gambling Commission sees fit to sacrifice the heart.
100,000 people have now signed the petition against affordability checks and 11 Westminster bank benchers will shortly convene to consider whether the petition will be debated by parliament. Only 19 petitions have thus far been rejected for debate, making the odds on acceptance very much in racing’s favour. Yet 19 petitions have failed, even though the perception is that 100,000 signatures would make a debate a legal requirement. It would be of interest to know the topics of the petitions that failed to make it past the scrutiny of the good men and women of the selected eleven. 
Let me quote the late author Lawrence Gardner writing on a different subject altogether. ‘Above all such considerations there is the requirement to toe the party-line while paying homage to the demigods of power. This prerequisite has nothing to do with obeying the law or with behaving properly – it relies totally on not rocking the boat, and on withholding opinions that do not conform. Those who break ranks are declared heretics, meddlers and troublemakers, and as such are deemed socially unfit by their governing establishment.’
I suspect the eleven back-benchers do not convene with free-hands. I suspect they are ‘briefed’ as to the wants and desires of ministers and as such, not withstanding the encouragement of the Prime Minister’s statements on the matter, petitions only go before members of parliament if it is desired by ‘demigods of power’ who are unknown and not elected by the electorate of the country.
Is it a coincidence that Ireland, a country that embraces the horse racing and breeding industry with greater affection than the parliament of Britain, is also on a path to pull the carpet from under the sport by denying bookmakers the freedom to market their wares on National and satellite television before nine o’clock at night?
Can we trust a political system that over the past few years has removed centuries-old freedoms and human rights from the people who elected them and have many more restrictions on our liberty awaiting us further down the pipe-line? The minister may keep chanting ‘we want proportionate, frictionless checks’ before we proceed, yet there is no talk of reimbursing the sport for funds already lost by bookmakers implementing checks that are far from proportionate or frictionless’ under duress from the Gambling Commission.
Bookmakers are not blameless in all this. If they had taken gambling addiction more seriously a decade ago and implemented their own checks and balances, would we be so open to this assault on our liberty to bet to limits of our own choice? And if the sport’s governing bodies had made the bold move decades ago to finance the sport through similar funding avenues as all of our main competitors around the world and not stick with stupid loyalty to the ‘betting jungle’ of funding through commercial companies that always put their shareholders first, we would be in far stronger and independent position to stave off this threat to the future existence of our sport.
The racing and breeding industry employ many thousands of people and swells the exchequer by many millions of pounds annually. The sport is an asset to the country, so ask yourself this: why then should the government seek to put the sport in peril?
This government is, as are governments around the world, bound hand and foot to an agreement signed by Boris Johnson to take forward the concepts within the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. Within the plans of Klaus Schwab and his cronies, there is no future for any sport that involves animals. Racecourses take-up land resources that would better serve the purposes of the ‘Great Reset’. Even having a cat or dog as a pet is seen by the planners of the ‘Great Reset’ as a waste of the Earth’s resources.
I have seen debates in parliament on topics that the government wish to drop a straight bat on. The debates are politely insipid and circuitous. ‘Jaw Jaw’ as Sir Winston said more favourably, a Prime Minister who would have fought tooth and claw for not only horse racing but for the independence of parliament to make its own decisions, rather than be lent on by outside influences like the W.H.O., the W.E.F. and the United Nations.
Quite recently several Just Stop Oil protestors were jailed from between 6-months and 2-years. The United Nations contacted the British government and criticised such sentences as ‘they would dissuade others from protesting’.
The petition must be kept open, with everyone in the industry urged to give their support. The aim must be to get 200,000 signatures. Not that I hold any more hope if 1-million signatures went before parliament. There is an agenda. It is not necessarily the agenda of the Prime Minister, and that is what is so concerning.

​If there is one aspect of horse racing in this country that maddens the mind, it is the way controversies and debates are never speedily put to bed. Yes, in the past, with so many sectors of the sport having a veto, it was hard job to achieve agreement on any one subject, and with the B.H.A. now having a casting vote dispute and debate should be brought to a conclusion with more alacrity than in the past.
Yet, after many, many decades, the whip remains a talking point. Although I would be happier if the number of permitted strikes were to be lowered to match the French standard, which would be fairer on jockeys from Europe riding here and vice-versa, the majority in this country seem to think the number is now about right. I would still like to see a number of races each season restricted to no strikes at all, if only for the data such races would provide. But if the majority are happy, let sleeping dogs lie, yes?
Now, of course, the debate is to disqualify or not to disqualify when a jockey breaks the permitted number of strikes in winning a race. In France, they disqualify if a jockeys goes over the permitted number by four, I believe. In Britain and Ireland jockeys receive a suspension but the horse is not disqualified. The problem the B.H.A. have given themselves is that if they unify with the French rules, a horse would not be disqualified on the day but up to a week later, if the race was run on a Tuesday as racecourse stewards must forward their findings to a disciplinary panel that sits on Tuesdays.
As someone who is an advocate of ‘one strike and that’s it’, I believe instead of a jockey being suspended for a long period, he or she should have their right to use a whip in earnest in a race removed for the same length of suspension they would receive at the moment. So, if a jockey at present would receive a ban of fourteen-days, for example, under my system they would be allowed to ride and receive an income during that period but would have to ride under a licence that does not permit them to strike a horse with their whip. I would also impose a fine of 10% of the value of the race in which the whip rules were infringed. I would also disqualify the horse and place it second, third or fourth, depending on how many horses were involved in the finish.
The whip debate, though, continues to be part of the conversation and it is time every effort was made to bring it to a conclusion that is acceptable to the public and helps to ring-fence the future of the sport.
The debate on small field sizes and lack of competitiveness has the potential to be as long-running a topic as the whip. The whip is by comparison a monster of a debate to resolve, with small field sizes a minnow that could be caught in tea strainer. While the sport languishes at the bottom of a curve, the number of race-meetings should be reduced. The strength of this strategy might well be proved over the coming days with frost forecast for much of the country, the result of which will be abandoned race-meetings and larger field sizes when winter eventually relents its grip on the sport. It’s a no brainer, isn’t it? So why is the B.H.A. meddling with the race program when the solution is so obvious. Yes, racecourse finances will be hit, yet is it not possible they could recoup short-term losses by better marketing of the meetings that remain?
Good ideas and good marketing are needed. Here’s one ‘good idea’. Carlisle’s most popular meeting, lost last season due to the weather, is the all-female jockeys meeting in the summer
. The Shergar Cup is also one of Ascot’s most popular days racing outside the Royal meeting and Champions Day. Though the ‘team’ idea shouldn’t be stretched to breaking point, with teams that people can associate with and support, not mythical and pointless as is tried every summer, a combined flat and jump jockey competition between British, Irish and perhaps European riders, with the flat races taking place at one track and the jump racing at another, might be popular with spectators.
I also believe a ‘no whip’ flat meeting would intrigue the public, even if it infuriated jockeys. We already have ‘hands and heels’ races for apprentices, so its not too much of a bridge too far.
The Racing Post these days is smattered with bad news stories. I realise it is not the thought or desire of the Racing Post to be doom-mongers and it is no doubt a long-term strategy of politicians and their overlords to wither the sport to the point of being unable to sustain itself, to use the land racecourses hold for purposes encased in the mantra within the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. Now, more than ever in its history, it is imperative the sport provides for itself good news stories, a mantra for survival, to solve its nagging internal problems and allow the sun to shine brighter over our sport, to protect its heritage and to provide a future history.
 

At mid-day on Saturday November 25th, the chances of a British-trained winner of the 2024 Cheltenham Gold Cup were pretty limited. By 4 pm, hope of home glory was all but gone.
The I.T.V. pundits, all of whom thought Shishkin a good thing to beat Pic d’orly, if that’s the correct spelling of his name, were of the joint opinion after the race that Shishkin’s refusal to race was ‘always on the cards’. I admit, I did not anticipate that particular card being dealt, though it would not have disappointed me greatly if he had finished second to the Paul Nicholls’ horse as I believe Shishkin to be an out and out stayer and his successes over 2-miles were only proof of his classiness. 
Nicky Henderson was shell-shocked, as evidenced by the ambush interview performed by an arm-twisted (by his producer, I suspect) Luke Harvey. He didn’t want to comment on what he had just witnessed and when pushed couldn’t form a coherent sentence either in support of his horse or how he intended to proceed. Henderson is a man who wears his heart on his sleeve and he was deeply embarrassed by Shishkin’s appalling behaviour. 
I must admit, I didn’t see why Shishkin needed sheepskins. He may think he has performed to the letter of his contract once he has got his head in front but at Aintree at the end of last season, though he may not have inspired praise for his class, he out-battled a good horse in Ahoy Senor and proved beyond all doubt that he needed every yard of 3-miles. Nicky Henderson does not need any advice from me or anyone other than Nico de Boinville, though I would whisper in his ear, if the unlikely opportunity were to arise, that a trip up to Newcastle along with Constitution Hill next Saturday would be a better idea than supplementing him for the Tingle Creek. The Rehearsal Chase is over 3-miles, Nico will be there, it will be new territory for him and I would suspect the opposition will not be of the highest class. Shishkin may not be in need of a confidence booster but Nicky Henderson sure is.
I thought Shiskin our best chance of bringing down G. D. C. come March. I thought the Cheltenham hill would bring his stamina to the fore. Sadly, I cannot see that happening now due to the egg all over my face.
In some ways, Bravemansgame was an even bigger disappointment than naughty boy Shishkin. He ran his race, displaying an immaculate jumping technique, perhaps one disagreement with Daryl Jacobs, and for the majority of the race looked the only likely winner. On form, Royale Pigaille should not have finished within ten-lengths of Bravemansgame, yet he was beaten fair and square, with the winner forging clear after the last fence. If the Betfair were run at Cheltenham, it would be easy imagine even Corach Rambler running past Bravemansgame up the hill.
Horses can improve for no discernible reason, as they can also go backwards in form. Training racehorses is not a science, neither is study of form. Paul Nicholls makes few mistakes, as proven by his decision to keep Harry Cobden at Ascot where he rode 4-winners, greatly improving his chances of reeling in Sean Bowen. Remember, people wrote-off Kauto Star several times and yet he came back to win a second Gold Cup and more remarkably a fourth Betfair. Bravemansgame will be back, though it would take a brave man at the top of his game to back him for the Cheltenham Gold Cup and it may take a prayer to He upon high to back him to beat Allaho in the King George.
Personally, I would give Bravemansgame a rest and go to Leopardstown and take on G.D.C. on his home turf at the Dublin Spring Festival before deciding whether to have another crack at the Gold Cup. It might be, and for all our sakes I hope it is not so, but the Ryanair might be the race for him, as Matt Chapman continues to suggest.
Though he was only third, the horse that impressed me on Saturday was Crambo. It looked to me that Haydock is the wrong type of course for a horse who seemed to need every yard of 3-miles, staying on stoutly to suggest that in another furlong he would gone past Slate Lane, the winner of the race. Crambo has Cheltenham written all over him and the Stayers Hurdle would not be a case of tilting at windmills by his connections.
Now it is the turn of G.D.C. to tighten the screw on British hopes of claiming back the Cheltenham Gold Cup. Let’s hope he doesn’t mess things up as both Bravemansgame and Shiskin achieved yesterday.
​

​B.H.A. we have a problem. Any chance you can get it sorted?
Staging the Ascot Chase and the Betfair Chase on the same day, when both races attract a similar type of horse, is worse than ridiculous, it is stupidly ridiculous. And don’t say, with premierisation this will not happen in the future, because it will as the B.H.A., racing’s governing body, cannot see the wood for the trees.
Shishkin and Bravemansgame are the two top 3-mile chasers in beleaguered Britain at this moment in time, each trained by our top two National Hunt trainers. It should be a clash to savour, though we cannot be sure it will happen until 24-hours before either the Ascot Chase or the Betfair is due to be run. Shishkin is entered in both races. If the ground is heavy at Haydock, he will be re-routed to Ascot, even if the ground is similar in Berkshire. Haydock heavy can resemble ground conditions at the Battle of the Somme and Nicky Henderson will not subject Shishkin to that sort of test, not first time out, if ever. In conjunction with my own thoughts, Henderson is not a fan of the Betfair. With the King George on the horizon, neither will Paul Nicholls want to run Bravemansgame under such stamina-sapping conditions. The fact that Nicholls has instructed Harry Cobden to ride at Ascot, leaving Daryl Jacob to pick up the potentially spare ride on Bravemansgame, tells you all you need to know about the lack of certainty of his horse setting-out for Lancashire pre-dawn on Saturday morning.
For the sake of competitive racing, one of these two races should either be staged later in the season or one of them should have its conditions altered so that it becomes a race for second-season chasers.
As anyone with any interest in my thoughts on the subject, will know it is pretty easy to guess which of the two I would ditch in a heartbeat. The Betfair Chase was inaugurated to establish a 3-mile Triple Crown, with a huge bonus for the owner of any horse to win all three races. The bonus is long gone and the use of the term ‘the first leg of the Triple Crown’ has long past into history. It is has become an unnecessary race. The Irish virtually boycott the race, with even Henry de Bromhead, who it could be argued has three top-class 3-mile chasers in his stable, giving it no thought this season.
The Ascot Chase, on the other hand, can attract middle-distance horses as well as 3-mile chasers and does not subtract from the quality of horse in the upcoming Coral Gold Cup at Newbury. Protektorat, you see, might be aimed at that race if there were no Betfair Chase to gobble-up.
The Betfair might have a place in the calendar if the conditions were restricted to second-season chasers, horses that had not won a chase prior to the previous season. It might even tempt Willie Mullins to enter a horse as he starts every season with half-a-dozen potentially top-class, second-season 3-mile chasers. Wishful thinking, I know, as it’s the maestro’s policy not to bring any of his good horse to Britain before the New Year, finding it easy to forego even the King George on St. Stephen’s Day. There is also a place in the calendar, I believe, for a top-class 2-mile handicap chase as a supporting race at Haydock. 2-mile handicap chasers are woefully neglected in this country, I suggest. I would prefer one of the two early big Cheltenham middle-distance chases to be changed to 2-miles.
It’s a good bet that if the ground is heavy at Haydock, neither Shishkin nor Bravemansgame will run, though we might see the former at Ascot. I hope we do, as I am looking forward to Shishkin setting out on a season which will lead him to Gold Cup glory.

​Harry Cobden for champion jockey is beginning to seem a better bet than it appeared back in the summer when he announced ‘he was going for it’. Inch by inch he is clawing back the huge advantage Sean Bowen won for himself during the summer and though 30 behind looks a large deficit, especially when all jockeys are just one ride away from injury, with the backing of Paul Nicholls and the network of support he has achieved through his hard work early in the season, Cobden could yet defeat my prophesy that he is the Adrian Maguire of the present band of jockeys – the best jockey never to be champion.
Stage Star was very impressive, I thought, in the Paddy Power Gold Cup, jumping for fun and running straight and true, the last fence blunder apart, to the line. Paul Nicholls’ problem this season, if the weather intervenes significantly, will be keeping his Grade 1 chasers apart. Keeping Stage Star to the intermediate distance is a sensible plan with the Ryanair as the target at the Festival, but what if something, God forbid, goes awry with Bravemansgame? Wouldn’t it be good policy to see if Stage Star might possibly be a good understudy for the Gold Cup? It is the only mistake Nicky Henderson makes, in my opinion, sticking blindly to Plan A, without giving himself immediate other options. Find out if a horse stays further earlier rather later, then you have data to go beside experience of the eye and natural equine instinct. But who am I to give advice to trainers who forever more will be regarded as legends of our sport!
The horse that really took my eye – Stage Star merely confirmed himself as the top-class horse we already knew he was – was Burdett Road, who found plenty up the Cheltenham hill and won going away from, if not proven graded juvenile hurdlers, a field of winners already this season. At last, I would suggest, Messrs Mullins & Elliott have a British-trained juvenile hurdler to fear.
The aspect of I.T.V.’s coverage yesterday that took my eye was the professionalism of Ruby Walsh. Seeing his friend and colleague, the so-called hard man A.P.McCoy, about to emotionally break-down during his reflection on his visit in the week to Graham Lee in his capacity as friend and President of the Jockeys Association, he stepped-in, took up the reins of the interview/conversation, allowing A.P. a moment to compose himself. Despite his attempts to appear cold and stoic in front of the cameras, A.P. is a wonderful human-being, a model for all of us on how to conduct ourselves in times of trouble and dire consequence. Ruby, too, is a brilliant man. We should be proud of them both.
As an aside from the present Cheltenham meeting and looking towards the Festival in March, I keep hearing jockeys and trainers say that a certain horse is better suited to the old course at Cheltenham rather than the new course and vice-versa. If the Gold Cup, Champion Hurdle or any of the championship races were run at Newbury, Ascot or Sandown, for instance, my point would be invalid as they have only one National Hunt course. Cheltenham, though, has two, not including the cross-country course. Since the construction of the new course, how many top-class chasers and hurdlers have had their chances of winning the big races compromised because the Gold Cup and Champion Hurdle are run on the same course every year? Why is their no debate on the idea of starting the meeting on the new course one year and the old course the following year. Alternating so as to spread the advantage and disadvantages.
The old course may be to Galopin Du Champs advantage, the new course to Bravemansgame’s advantage. Or vice-versa. Or, at least when it comes to last year’s one-two, the result would stay the same whichever of the two courses were used. I like fairness and believe, though I accept that a horse with a predilection for one or other of the courses might be injured the year his or her preference is used, we would achieve a better understanding of the merits of horses if the big races swapped courses every other year.
Just a thought to inspire debate.

​Back in the day when health & safety was just a namby-pamby notion – incidentally, the word ‘namby-pamby’ came from the mind of a ‘hack writer’ Henry Carey as a derogatory nick-name for the poet Ambrose Philips, noted for writing ‘adulatory odds addressed to the young children of wealthy parents’. He also used the term ‘pilly-piss’ to insult Philips. Thankfully the latter did not root itself in the language. I digress. – in wait of its moment in history, when racing people wanted to be entertained, the weather had to be more than a few degrees below freezing to curtail their sport.
I remember reading in a racing book (cannot locate the source) that in around the 1920’s, if I recall, Catterick races looked in jeopardy due to frost until someone with a propensity for lateral thinking asked a local farmer to herd his flock of sheep around the course several times. The warmth of the sheep and the action of their hooves on the grass and soil took out the frost and allowed racing to commence. I dare say the ground was gluey and slimy but heigh-ho, they raced and a good time was had by all.
Not a viable option in this day and age, of course. But when racing is in jeopardy due to frost in only some parts of the course and the general temperature in above freezing, I am always left frustrated when the meeting is cancelled. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of an agricultural machinery company to invent a mobile directed heating device to remove frost in a similar manner as can be achieved by pouring warm water on frozen ground. During the season, meetings will be cancelled due to parts of a racecourse in the line of shadow being still frozen while the rest of the course is raceable. It is maddening to clerks-of-courses and everyone else: surely a solution is only a lateral thought away.
Low sun is more of a baffler as it does fall into the clutches of health & safety officers or jockeys to give them their correct job title. I am not mocking jockeys for wanting fences taken out due to low sun. As drivers, we all know what it is like when the sun lies low in a cloudless sky. There is one particular lane around where I live which I have learned to avoid when the sun is low in the sky as it removes visibility by 100% in places and it is a nightmare of real possibility to run-down dog-walkers or a child who daily walked that lane to catch the school bus.
Low sun holds the very real threat to the well-being of horse and rider.
I have two possible solutions, both costly, I suspect, and perhaps unworkable. Here goes.
In an age of transportable or mobile fences, is it possible to reconfigure racecourses to race the opposite way to normal when low sun has command of the situation. If Aintree, for example, were subject to a weather forecast that had a 60% or more chance of low sun the following day, if they could race right-handed instead of left-handed, would that prove a solution? Starts would have to be flexible, the winning post, too, not to mention the problem of patrol cameras and the photo-finish camera. Not an easy-fix but worth debate, I suggest. Obviously, the problem may be transferred to the back-stretch, rather than the home-straight, but the configuration of the course may make the problem less of a problem. It is a suggestion and it might work for some courses but not others.
My second suggestion is more feasible, though more expensive to implement, I fear. In cricket, side-screens are used so that batsman can see the flight of the ball. I propose something similar for racecourses. What is needed to be known is the exact angle between the eyes of horse and jockey and the position of the sun on the horizon. We are talking low sun, so perhaps no more than 30% of angle. If a number of upright slotted posts were erected in the line of sight, black screens could be pulled into position, either electronically or by brute strength, to the exact position to block out the glare of the sun. My idea is basic and naïve, though I am certain an engineer using sensors and modern gadgetry could perfect the principle and make it easily workable. Man has walked on the moon and sent craft to Mars and beyond. Surely, we can block out the sun once in a while!

​If asked to put forward one aspect of the racing industry the sport can be justly proud of, and there are many candidates, I would suggest the Injured Jockeys Fund. There really should be one-day in the racing calendar dedicated to the charity, with race-meetings staged mainly for the purpose of raising awareness to the casual racegoer of the services and support the I.J.F. provides to our leading human players and to raise funds so the charity will always be there.
The terrible injury sustained by Graham Lee at Newcastle last week, an unstable fracture to the neck, brought home, at least to me, that the I.J.F. is the most vital cog in the ever-turning wheel of the sport. ‘The Injured Jockeys Fund will look after his needs to assist him in his recovery and predicament for as long as it takes. Whatever help he and his family needs, we will be there to provide it.’
Read that statement. No ifs, buts, maybes, we will do what we can. Not even a promise. But a declaration of intent. The Injured Jockeys Fund cannot wave a magic wand and repair Graham to the man prior to his fall but they will move heaven and earth to give him as good a life as humanly possible now and when he finally leaves hospitable and must learn to live a life that will doubtless be the opposite to the life he has lived his whole adult life.
Graham is a jockey. His first response will be ‘when can I get out of bed’. ‘When will I be riding again.’ If ever in the same position, I would wither and wish death as my saviour. I am weak. Jockeys are strong.
The Injured Jockeys Fund’s mission statement is to care-for the general wellbeing of their members, to provide medical support, help with financial needs and mental wellbeing and to help and assist not only current jockeys but former jockeys as well. They now have 3 full-time rehabilitation centres, Jack Berry House that serves norther-based jockeys, Oaksey House in Lambourn and Peter O’Sullevan House in Newmarket. They have also just opened a Taunton South-West Hub to lessen journey times for injured jockeys based in that part of the country.
The Injured Jockeys Fund do not sit on their hands, satisfied the job is well-done. ‘The I.J.F. provides robust, science-based, data-informed approach to rehabilitation assessment of injuries and recovery, standardised across all I.J.F. sites. An evidence-informed, criteria-based approach to the rehabilitation and return to racing of jockey-athletes and the wider racing community’. No jockey is allowed to return to racing after injury unless he or she can pass muster in muscular capacity, maximal force expression, muscular power and energy system fitness. If the injury came with concussion, there is a mandatory period of suspension, if unconscious for more than 3-seconds after a fall, the are suspended for 21-days and then must pass a concussion test. Compare that with football, rugby or any contact sport, where players return to the pitch heavily bandaged after undergoing an examination no more exhausting than ‘can you count to ten’ and ‘what is your mother’s name’, or something along those lines. In racing, jockeys are not treated as a commodity, a pawn on the battlefield. 
All sports could learn a great deal from the Injured Jockeys Fund. Just recently there was a conference where all the equestrian disciplines came together to ‘learn best-practice and how to discharge their duty of care’ from the I.J.F.
The sport needs to stop organising charity days for cancer research and other good causes and look to supporting in every way possible the I.J.F. and equine charities.
To learn more about the work of the I.J.F. I suggest visiting their website and advise you to buy a copy of Sean Magee’s excellent book celebrating fifty-years of the charity. The Book was published in 2013. Every contribution to the fund’s coffers helps. A little of the £20 purchase price will help Graham Lee in his recovery and future life.