why does the sport of horse racing seem eternally blind to obvious solutions to problems.

​The two major problems afflicting horse racing at this present time, as everyone is aware, are inadequate prize-money and a lack of competitiveness, especially at the upper echelons of chasing and hurdling, though I would contend it is also problematic in Group 1’s on the flat.
Anyone who speaks on the topic of prize-money always alludes to the purses to be won abroad, Australia, France, the U.S., Hong Kong, for example. What connects all these major overseas racing nations is that prize-money, in one manner or another, comes directly from profits from the Tote. Of course, according to the clever people, that boat long left the shores of Great Britain. It is not worth even giving any thought to copying a method of achieving acceptable levels of prize-money to save our sport here, as that boat has sailed. No, what must be proposed is convoluted schemes involving bits of money coming from here, from there, from somewhere close to the horizon. No, it is better to leave the sport to wither than even to consider a racecourse without its jungle and the atmosphere it colours the sport with.
It would be so much easier and less traumatic, I would imagine, for punters if affordability checks were dealt with in-house, by the sport itself. As we all know and fear, affordability checks are draining the sport of its life-blood, yet between them and us, the no-nothing gambling commission and the sport of horse racing, there is a third-party, a commercial enterprise that for some reason seems intent on killing itself off by siding with the no-nothing government quango that is the gambling commission.
The way to fund horse racing in this country is to choose one of the methods of funding used by racing nations, once our inferior but now are superior. Chuck the bookies and save racing, I say.
Here is another obvious answer to one of racing’s frustrating problems. Field sizes always go up after racing has been stopped for a week or so by frost, snow, flood or monsoon. Even the top-end of the sport sees growth in field numbers. So here it is, empirical evidence that less racing gives us bigger field sizes and more competitive racing.
But that is too easy, isn’t it? Racecourses want as many meetings as they can get. Never mind the ever-reducing number of horses in training. Less can’t ever be more, not if you own a racecourse.
What people never seem to mention when bringing into play racecourse attendance and field sizes from the fifties, sixties and seventies, is that there were no all-weather tracks back then, very little evening or summer racing and though there were more racecourses, there were actually fewer meetings.
Through the winter, all-weather tracks can be a life-saver for the industry. On most occasions Chelmsford, Newcastle, Lingfield and others can race even when inclement weather has scuppered National Hunt. I think it is rank stupid when Southwell and Wolverhampton race on the same day or Kempton and Lingfield. But through the winter months all-weather tracks are a god-send.
But why have so many all-weather meetings through the summer? It makes no sense. Reduce the number by half through May to September. Save money, save electricity, spare the roads, give jockeys a break. Cutting the number of all-weather racing through the summer months is the best way to reduce the number of fixtures. Obvious. It’s not as if evening all-weather racings attracts big crowds. Yet too easy a solution for the B.H.A. Cut the number of summer jumping meetings but not the all-weather! Bonkers!
And, as the Racing Post is proving this week with its excellent ‘When Horses Raced’ series, reduce the number of graded jump races and trainers will be forced, no doubt gnashing their teeth and violently objecting, to run their top horses in handicaps, allowing us to discover which horses really are in the ‘great’ category, rather than called ‘great’ simply by winning races that are as close to an open goal as the racing gods will allow. By way of example, I will put forward the names of Altior and Shishkin. There are others.
If you want to know what truly great horses can achieve go look for John Randall’s article in the ‘When Horses Races’ series and be astounded by the weight both Arkle and Flyingbolt could concede and still be victorious. I hope Nicky Henderson’s wife hid the paper from him this morning because if he reads the weight those two legends humped around Cheltenham, Leopardstown and Newbury, he would faint at the thought people might expect him to campaign his horses in a similar gung-ho manner.
Has jumping improved since the introduction of the pattern? Thoughts on a post-card and addressed to the B.H.A.
Oh for the days of the National Hunt Committee.