the one criticism of this year's cheltenham festival.

​Fewer people attending this year’s Cheltenham Festival do not concern me as those of us who live in the real world can testify as to how much the ‘cost-of-living crisis’ is affecting day-to-day life. Added to which, the rail strike was also bound to affect attendance numbers. Fewer people in the enclosed space of a racecourse, though, would have allowed a better experience for those who attended, especially those on a first visit to the Festival. On the credit side, I.T.V. racing achieved good viewing figures, giving anecdotal evidence that those who chose not to attend in person watched the racing on t.v., allowing us to believe that the appeal of the Cheltenham Festival is not diminished.
Therefore, it is a shame bordering on embarrassment that the starts of so many races, including the Gold Cup, were at time shambolic. How difficult can it be to start a horse race?
The problem, as far I can interpret, is that jockeys are lining-up so far from the tapes. Horses are not machines and with the atmosphere rolling off the stands often described as ‘electric’, coupled with the nerves and excitement of jockeys in want of achieving ambitions, the equine blood is up, also wanting to ‘get on with things’. It might be difficult for ‘antis’ and those watching horse racing for the first time to comprehend but a good number of racehorses actually enjoy their racecourse experience and share the thrill of their riders. Quite naturally they want to get into gallop-mode as quickly as possible as experience assures them that is the quickest method of getting to the finish-line. To expect all the runners in a handicap to walk what seems like half-a-furlong from where jockeys habitually line-up for the major races to the starting tape is a recipe for what continually happened last week and on many other occasions.
My solutions to the problem can be as high-tech or basic as required. Firstly, a square or oblong of ten or fifteen yards, made of sawdust or perhaps laser beams, should be set out two-yards from the starting tape. The jockeys have their girths checked outside of the ‘box.’ When the starter raises the flag jockeys line-up and then walk forward into the ‘box’, with the responsibility falling on their shoulders to have their horses pointing toward the tape. Once all the horses are in the ‘starting box’, the starter flips the tape and the race is off.
This suggestion, I accept, is not fool-proof. No starting procedure where horses are concerned can be. Yet it will prevent to a large extent the problem of horses getting out-of-control which is what causes virtually all aborted starts. I also suggest it places greater responsibility on the jockeys for fair and even starts. At the moment the starters’ instruction to walk-in is what is at the centre of the present dilemma. ‘The Box Method’, will not jeopardise the chances of a good break for those horses walking forward by those horses standing still, jig-jogging or cantering; ‘crimes’ which I believe are just natural equine responses and, on most occasions, out of the control of jockeys. Once all horses are in the ‘box’ they are under orders and the starter can flip the tape.

Though it had no impact on the racing, in general the assembling of so many good horses in so few stables is, and will continue to be, detrimental to the sport. No one can argue that Willie Mullins is a genius of his profession. Yet before him the same could be said of Michael Dickenson, Martin Pipe, Fred Winter and so on. They, though, did not have 200-horses to call on and if you go to the form books of yesteryear you will discover the winners of major races were spread across far more trainers than is the case nowadays. It says a great deal when a trainer has six-winners at the Cheltenham Festival and some will see that as a disappointing haul in consideration of previous years. Whether the Closutton maestro thinks it a ‘disappointment’ only he will know.
The advantage in limiting the number of horses a trainer can have at his or her command is that the limited supply of top-class staff will naturally become more available to other trainers. Fifty, for example, less horses require less staff and the people ‘let go’ will hardly be out-of-work for more than a day given the shortage of staff reported by nearly every trainer in Britain and Ireland. Of course, the likes of Mullins, Elliott, Nicholls and Henderson, will easily get around any cap on the horses they are allowed to train at any one time by setting-up satellite yards for horses not due to run until months into the future and this might not prevent situations like we had in the Triumph this year when Mullins had over half the field.
But at this moment in racing’s history, when so many trainers are finding it financially impossible to make a living at the sport, for the future, and for the integrity of the sport as a whole, a cap, to me, makes very good sense. It will spread more horses, owners and staff, around far more trainers, will allow the smaller and middle-band trainers greater opportunity to make a living, keep them in the sport and allow them to offer better salaries and incentives to keep younger and the more experienced staff working in the industry. Tough times require tough solutions that may inconvenience the few. Tough times also call for everyone in the sport to pull together.