radical, if sensible, pland afoot, 7-days doubled & marathon at the curragh.

​Baron Allen, who I am warming to, though I hold firm to my believe that the man or woman who is in charge at the B.H.A. should have had hands-on experience of the sport before being appointed, still prefers to operate in the shadows, talking behind closed doors with racing stakeholders, no doubt trying to accomplish a deal before he takes office, whenever that might be. This opening paragraph being as long-winded as the Baron Allen will he, will he not, saga.
If Baron Allen’s strategy pays off and he manages to broker a deal with all of the B.H.A. shareholders, the associations of racecourses, racehorse owners, breeders and the affiliation of trainers, jockeys and stable staff, it will be the best-laid masterstroke since Barney Curley made the phone box at Bellewstown as popular a tourist attraction as the Giant’s Causeway. The Racing Post this morning described his plan as radical, yet most of us might think it as sensible as using a camera to decide the result of a photo-finish.
What Baron Allen wishes to be in place during his tenure as chairman is that the B.H.A. is split into two separate and independent entities, though remaining within the corporate structure, one to be responsible for regulatory affairs and the other overseeing governance and commercial interests. He also requires, and should be armed with, a whip to keep the naughty, disruptive boys and girls in line.
As I said, after originally being highly critical of a non-racing man/woman being appointed as chairman, I am warming to Baron Allen. He has obviously studied and researched the history of the B.H.A., decided upon all its failings and has formed a plan to right all the wrongs of previous B.H.A. administrations. He spent two-days at Royal Ascot last week, so he knows what a racecourse looks like and he has, and continues to do so, met all of the protagonists in this drama of 3, 4 or 5 acts. If he gets his way and finally takes up his position at the B.H.A. progress for the sport is possible. If he decides it is a hill too steep to traverse, the sport will be in limbo, and then who will take on the task of making a union out of a board of self-seeking big-heads, most of whom seem to believe the sport owes them, and no one else, a living.

Gary Carroll received yesterday a suspension of his licence of 14-days, plus a fine of £5,800, for going two over his whip allowance of six-strokes in the Coronation Stakes at Royal Ascot. If the race had been any other than a Group race his suspension would have been half of that he received. I doubt if Gary Carroll is happy by the verdict, though I dare say it was what he expected. I, too, am unhappy by the verdict of the whips appeal panel.
Here is my problem. Megan Jordan received a similar suspension for her ride in the most prestigious race for female amateur jockeys at York. She is a relatively inexperienced rider, especially compared to the vastly experienced Carroll. Both races were important races for the jockeys involved, yet, accepting the fine imposed on Carroll (his 10% of the prize-money, I should imagine), their punishments are the same. I realised the moment she crossed the line that Jordan would eventually be disqualified, yet saw nothing egregious in Carroll’s ride. Why must the rules be so rigid? Personally, I would restrict use of the whip to one-stroke, so I am not going to suggest jockeys should not be punished for transgressing the whip rules, and I do not believe different races should have different punishments. Jordan is an amateur, whilst, for the sake of example, Carroll is an experienced professional. Jordan’s ban covers days when there are amateur races, so her ban could last a month (perhaps not at this time of year when there can be 3-amatuer races on any one-day), whilst Carroll’s ban will be 14-consequative days. 
I would prefer to have had Jordan’s ban reduced to a day at the British Racing School to undertake a course on how to use the whip correctly, followed by a ban on using a whip (other than for protective purposes) for 10-races. Carroll, being a professional, I would have banned him from using a whip (again not for protective purposes) for 24-races, plus the fine imposed. Discuss.

A marathon of endurance and a half-million from the World Pool or a select day of quality racing? That was the dilemma and the Curragh chose the former. Nine races, six big-field handicaps, 2 listed races and the main race of the Irish flat season, with 35-minutes between races. Richard Forristal is mad against the fare served up on Sunday and you can see his point. Yet it is not far different from the supporting races for the Epsom Derby.
I believe, as Epsom should, the Curragh should look at making ‘Derby Day’ a day of riches, even if that means losing a couple of days racing. Stage the Derby and Oaks on the same day and incorporate all the other Group races due to be staged on the two-days of the classic, even though on Derby Day this year there are no group races. My point remains, though – two classics, three Group races and a couple of important handicaps. 
I also believe the Curragh should consider constructing a National Hunt course as it would seem to me, an outsider whose experience of the wide-open spaces of the Curragh is from the t.v. set, the best way of filling the stands as flat racing is not achieving a full house.