the ascot debacle.

​I may well stand accused here of hypocrisy. I believe, and have stated this belief many times on this website, that the first principal of horse racing should be that the horse comes first in all matters. As such, I should be 100% in agreement with Nicky Henderson, Alan King and Venetia Williams, in their decision to withdraw Constitution Hill, Edwardstown and L’Homme Presse from their respective races at Ascot this weekend. On Saturday, perhaps due to my profound disappointment at being prevented from seeing the three horses run for the first time this season, I was, at least in my mind, highly critical of both their decision and their reasons for taking an infuriating decision that displayed horse racing in a very poor light.
On reflection, though, I believe the matter in hand is not the withdrawal of the three horses but ‘between the clerk of the course and the trainers in question and who held the moral high ground? Nicky Henderson claimed that in his opinion the true state of the ground was ‘good to firm’ or ‘quick’. Alan King agreed. Even though the soft ground preferring Goshen won quite tidily on the same ground that was not good enough for Constitution Hill, Edwardstown and L’Homme Presse to strut their stuff. But if Henderson, King and Williams, were correct in their description of the ground, then ‘the good, good-to-soft in places’ was clearly a misrepresentation and as such a) an enquiry should be called and b) the clerk of the course, if found in error, should be reprimanded in some way.
It has to be admitted that circumstances have been testing for clerks and their ground-staff for the past six-months or more, with lack of rainfall and diminishing levels of water in reservoirs for irrigation. But if the ground is firm or good-to-firm clerks should be truthful, with no need of apology as the situation is clearly out of their hands. This, I believe, is the crux of the matter; not were the three trainers acting in cowardice for withdrawing their prestige horses. It is blindly obvious that either the going description was accurate or, as Nicky Henderson made clear, it was not. All three trainers declared with the going described as ‘good, good-to-soft in places’ and on race-day it remained the same, yet no fines were issued. That only makes sense if the stewards believed the trainers had a fair point and the ground was not as advertised in both the morning papers and on track.
What must be concerning for connections and enthusiasts is that the same situation could occur both up at Newcastle this Saturday and at Sandown the following week. There is no doubt that racecourses, due to the prolonged dry spell, are soaking up rainwater like a sponge and for all the rain that may fall on Newcastle and Sandown if it stops on the Thursday or Friday the ground might go from soft to good overnight and we will have the spectacle of Henderson (with his trusty walking-stick) and de Boinville (in his wellington boots) walking the track before racing with faces as long as Constitution Hill’s.
Where I find Nicky Henderson somewhat contrary is that he could run Constitution Hill at Newbury this week in the Gerry Fielden, which is now, I believe, a limited handicap, yet his preference seems to be to drag his horse all the way up to Newcastle to face a right ding-dong with his stablemate Epatante who will be in receipt of the 7Ib mares weight allowance. To me, a numbskull, yes, without the assistance of a shred of inside knowledge, that is making the ‘nightmare’ situation ever more complicated.
One final point on the weather. I live in North Devon and we have had a foot of rain in the past few weeks; I wish someone would build a racecourse hereabouts as we get a whole lot of weather, and I mean the Atlantic is an, at times, over-zealous provider of rainfall and stormy winds. It rains as I prattle on!