the cream will always rise to the top ...

​Fate, of course, might determine the most talented in any sport are denied the recognition their ability seemed to afford them. Yet as mere mortals there is nothing we can do to mitigate against the wishes of the unseen gods of fate. Harry Cobden is first jockey to Paul Nicholls and our current champion jockey for no other reason than fate has not interfered with his ascent to where he now sits. He is the best we have but that does not illuminate falls that injury and put him on the sidelines. He is gifted but more importantly he is industrious and committed to being the best he can be.
Others are not so fortunate and must work at the coalface of the sport for limited rewards and limited opportunity. These men and women, under both codes of the sport, the journeyman/women of our sport, labour just as hard as those at the higher echelons, ride out for more stables, drive just as many miles and fail to finish in more races than, say, Harry Cobden who may appear for one ride, win and then be driven home by his chauffeur satisfied with his day.
During my perusal of the letters I have been fortunate to have published in the Racing Post over the past 20-years, many of my observations and ideas revolved around fairness to all, equine and human. To my mind, in a sport where integrity is vital to the ‘social licence’, where stewards are always on the lookout for jockeys giving horses an ‘easy’ ride, and are of a sceptical mindset whenever a gamble, honest or dodgy, is landed, the sport might do itself a service if it did all it could to ensure every jockey, trainer and owner, were allowed the opportunity to earn a decent reward at the job.
It is why I was aggrieved when the fabulous four in Ireland, Messrs Mullins, Elliott, Cromwell and De Bromhead, threatened legal action when it was proposed to safeguard sixty-races a season for the sole benefit of all the other trainers in Ireland who did not win 50-races the previous season. I am, as a rule, highly critical of the Irish authorities, but on this occasion I thought them, if not ahead of the curve, ahead of the B.H.A.. A trainer who can afford to pay his bills, put food on the table for his family, must be less likely to be persuaded to break the rules of racing. They should not be given five-course meals and champagne but these hard-working trainers deserve a fair opportunity to at least have the resources to pay their staff and have a little left over to have butter on their bread. Whether the ‘fabulous four’ are close to being millionaires I do not care to know but for them to behave like elites and to demand the ‘little people’ should be forced to exist on the scraps from their table was, and remains, sickening.
Jockeys, too, would be less likely to be persuaded to break the rules if they were provided with greater opportunity to impress their skills upon owners, trainers and the public. I suggested a small number of races per week could be restricted to jockeys who had ridden less than (any number you care to suggest). Perhaps one race in the north, one in the Midlands, one in the south, per week. It would hardly make a dent in the earnings of the top jockeys if they could not ride in three-races per week or somewhere close to 140-races per year.
Owners, too, could be better accommodated if races could occasionally be restricted to horses that had not won a race in an eighteen-month period or even races restricted to the very worst rated. Critics of such schemes seem to forget the worst rated horses help to fund the wages of those who look after them. Lose those horses from the sport and their owners may not replace them.
For the sport to thrive and survive everyone presently involved in the sport should be looked after by those who govern the sport. The B.H.A. are misguided in their elitist approach to the sport, with resources given over to the Ascots and Yorks, with less resources provided for the racecourses that are the very bedrock of the sport. Fakenham and Ripon are as important to our sport as Cheltenham and Goodwood.
When a trainer is forced by financial necessity to exit the sport, we lose talent, knowledge and most importantly, an employer. When a jockey is forced to move abroad to find greater opportunity, the sport loses skill, dedication and an employee. The B.H.A. should think about this and be pro-active in giving everyone presently employed in the sport a sporting chance of making a living from something that is not mere sport but a life choice.