the constitution hill debate & moaning marquand.

​Michael Buckley pays the piper and has every right to call the tune. He has also taken the blame for the long-running debate that has taken place since he suggested that his greatest ambition was to own a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner and for Constitution Hill to have the chance to follow Dawn Run’s exploits and achieve the Champion Hurdle/Gold Cup double. He set the match to the bonfire of debate and if he thinks by making a final decision on the matter he will put an end to the business, I think he is mistaken.
Nicky Henderson is not only a great trainer of racehorses but, as far as I can determine, a good human being. His decisions are almost always correct, yet the racing press and the racing public usually castigate him no matter which side of the folds he falls on. As with all of us, he occasionally defends his decisions with a false premise. 
He said on many occasions that Sprinter Sacre was good enough to win a Champion Hurdle, yet he chose to switch him to fences with the objective of winning the Arkle followed by the 2-mile Champion Chase. The 2-mile Champion Chase was worth the exercise with Sprinter Sacre but it is not worth the exercise with Constitution Hill, apparently? That’s all I am saying.
Although I am unadventurous by nature, I admire those who are and I am disappointed in Michael Buckley only because I thought him to be a man always up for a challenge. That he has made the right choice for his horse in the short term cannot be questioned. It is more than possible that his horse might win five Champion Hurdles in succession and he will go down in racing history as the equal to Arkle and Golden Miller. He will certainly be declared the greatest hurdler of all-time. And in winning all those races he will pay for Michael Buckley to buy more horses to have in training. Not a small consideration for someone who by the standard of the day only keeps a modest number of horses in training.
The good element of the decision to stay over hurdles is that Willie Mullins has made the same decision about State Man and Impaire Et Passe, so at least there will be good quality opposition to take on Constitution Hill come March, if not before.

I like Tom Marquand, and not only because he is married to the delightful Holly. He talks sense, usually, he rides beautifully and is a model for all young people to wish to emulate. Love him. Wouldn’t hear a word against him. Except!
I don’t know if in private he is a bit of a moaner, a glass half-full sort of a guy. And I understand that a fire burns in his belly to become champion jockey. That’s good. As you would want a top jockey to be; not accepting he has found his limit and is not going about his job simply for the money and the super-car parked in the garage. But the rules are the same for everyone with a jockeys’ licence.
The one-meeting a day rule is not stifling Tom Marquand’s attempt to haul back the huge deficit he is behind William Buick. If Buick could have ridden at two meetings a day throughout the season, he might be fifty-winners ahead at the top of the championship table at the moment. Buick is as restricted in the number of winners he could have ridden, the same as everyone else are. Just accept the situation and stop moaning about it, Tom. The rule does not need looking at and I hope the B.H.A. do not revisit the most sensible rule change they have made in its history. I would applaud Marquand, as I applaud Buick, if he were to become champion jockey. But remember this: it’s not all about ambition of one man.
Because of the one-meeting per day rule, many of your colleagues, Tom, are earning a better standard of living, leaving them less exposed to those who might want to lead them down a dark and corrupt path. The one-meeting per day rule allows jockeys in loving relationship and with children to parent and support, a better life balance, both mentally and physically. The sport must be run to help the majority not the lucky few who can afford to buy super-cars and houses with more spare bedrooms than the average working man’s home has actual rooms.

Finally, on this date in 1879:
‘No less than fourteen summonses were issued on the third instant against persons charged with betting on the racecourse at the last Warwick meeting, and the open and wholesale manner in which the proceedings were conducted by some of the offenders would seem to show that the law against betting had no real terrors for them’.
What goes around, comes around, it seems. Not that betting is against the law at the moment. The line of travel, though!

Incidentally, the ‘on this day’ references are culled from Graham Sharpe’s 1993 publication ‘Racing Dates’, a book that is finally proving of some worth to me.