small can easily equal success, cheltenham cannot do a sale & less can sometimes be more.

​In today’s Racing Post, Peter Scargill makes a good argument for those people fortunate to be able have a string of horses in training to spread their wings a little by sending a horse to someone of a smaller standing in the training ranks. Rich Richi has two horses, I believe, with Venetia Williams, even though ‘his’ trainer is Willie Mullins, so it is not such a crazy idea, is it? Not that Venetia can be considered as of ‘smaller standing’ when it comes to training racehorses. Personally, I am of the opinion she is up there with the best, her own brilliance augmented by having one of the best jockeys around as her stable number one.
A situation whereby there is Willie Mullins and then there is everyone else is unhealthy for the welfare of the sport. Compared to Willie’s mega-successful stable, the likes of Elliott, de Bromhead and Cromwell, all Gold Cup winning trainers, are thought-of as lesser lights.
It is nothing short of ridiculous that someone as phenomenally successful over such a long period time as Paul Nicholls loses owners to Willie Mullins. It begs the question what must someone achieve to be considered worthy of the support of the wealthiest owners?
Jeremy Scott, may, as he admits himself, ‘got lucky’ last week in the Champion Hurdle, yet he has trained winners for twenty-years or more, with notable victories in graded races along the way. He comes across as an amiable guy who any owner might have great fun associating himself or herself with. He also trains in a stunningly beautiful part of the world in Dulverton on Exmoor. And he is not alone, though he is the man in the limelight at the moment. What more must the likes of Jamie Snowden, Ben Pauling and Olly Murphy, to name but three, achieve to gain the support of leading British owners who presently have horses trained across the water? Last week, Rebecca Curtis, once the up-and-coming trainer in this country, showed again that given the quality of horse she can get the job done at the highest level.
And, of course, having all your eggs in one basket, if a stable should be hit with a virus, can lead to a very quiet season.

Some retailers cannot do a sale. Cutting 10% from the cost of a shirt is merely playing at the concept of what a sale should be. In fact, it is hoodwinking potential customers. Cheltenham are patting themselves on the back for cutting ticket prices at next year’s Festival, though not as anyone would notice. Cutting £3 from the price of a ticket, reducing it to £50, as for the Best Mate enclosure for next year’s Festival, is so small pickings that it is more embarrassing than it is generous.
As I suggested the other day, my best suggestion when it comes to admission prices is to link the Festival to other meetings during the season, with anyone who has attended 3 or more meetings rewarded with a 20 or 25% reduction on their ticket for the Festival, no matter which enclosure is paid for. I even suggested Cheltenham might raise their prices a smidge at every other meeting to off-set their generosity towards racegoers at the Festival. Permit me to suggest that a reduction should be glaringly obvious and worthy of a round of applause.

There are too many races this week with only two or three runners due to the words ‘firm’ as in good-to-firm and watering in the going description. No one has any control, of course, over the weather the weather-gods provide and excessive watering can lead to problems further down the line. To my mind, there are too many meetings at the moment. In fact, by common consent, it is unarguable that there are too many meetings per se and here is how I would like that to be remedied.
Less meetings, more races per meeting, with prize-money down to eighth-place, tenth-place when there are twenty-runners or more. Ecologically, and not just to cuddle-up to the woke nutjobs, having eight or nine-races on a racecard but less meetings, makes a lot of sense. Less miles on the road equals a decrease in fuel bills for trainers, owners and jockeys. If prize-money is awarded for the first eight, rather than just the first four or five, as is generally the case, this will lessens the cost of keeping a horse in training. Having fewer races equals more competitive fields, boosting betting revenue.
Just a thought worth consideration. You decide. Just do not write to the Racing Post, as James Reid of Haselmere did, quoting verbatim, mostly, my thoughts on what to do with the Mares Hurdle. He might have at least said he supported my proposal. Or ‘furthermore to Mr.Knight’s thoughts …