EQUINE FLU, 'THE DEFENDING CHAMPION', 8 NOT 6-DAYS, PACEMAKERS & AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.

In the week of Royal Ascot a horse diagnosed with equine flu might not seem an approrpriate lead story. I contend it is and would argue that it should have been given more prominence in today's Racing Post. This latest reported case is the first to involve a thoroughbred in the care of a licenced trainer and makes the risk of a widespread equine flu epidemnic one step further along the line towards a shut-down. The horse was one of eight transported from the recent Goffs Arkle Sale. The affected horse was delivered, I believe, straight to an isolation stable at Mel and Phil Rowley's yard in Shropshire and has not mingled with other horses. Obviously the connections of the other seven horses that were transported with the affected horse are now on twenty-four watch, hoping their horse has escaped infection. The sport lives in troubled times; what it cannot afford is having the threat of a shut-down hanging over it, with all the dire financial implications a shut-down would bring, especially with all the racing festivals between now and September. It is not that long ago an equine flu outbreak closed the sport down, that time only for a few days. Crossed-fingers time again.

I wish the I.T.V. presenters would stop using the phrase 'defending champion'. No race at Royal Ascot bears the name champion in any of the race titles and by, for example, claiming Ombudsman as 'the defending champion' in the Prince of Wales' Stakes, they can only confuse the occasional observer of our sport. Ombudsman may well be the greatest racehorse on the planet but until he wins a Champion Hurdle or 2-Mile Champion Chase he cannot legitimately be referred to as a 'defending champion of anything'.

Christophe Soumillon was slapped with an 8-day ban by the over-zealous Ascot stewards, not 6-days. 6 was harsh, 8 is cruel. If Puerto Rico had finished second after Soumillon had left the door open for his 'team-mate' to sail through and win, then the ban would, in my eyes, be justified. If Soumillon had bumped Bow Echo out of the way to allow Ryan Moore an easy passage, the ban would have been justified. Puerto Rico was not stopped from winning; Soumillon did not ride an injudious race; no horse was truly impeded from finishing in its rightful position due to Soumillon allowing Ryan Moore through on the rail. Soumillon should appeal. He received 8-days for his ride in the St.James's Palace and yet a jockey found guilty of misuse of the whip might only get a 4-day ban. It is the wrong look the stewards are providing to the public.

I realise there is recent evidence to prove me wrong when I say pacemakers cannot win but those who know, know not to back them. The less savvy, the first-day race-goer, for example, might like the name Devil's Advocate or the name Mississippi River might remind them of a paddle-boat experience on that very same river and have a fiver on either of them. I would argue, if punters are to be treated like children, that my two fictional punters had less of a fair chance than those awarded their stakes back when they backed the Derby favourite 10-days ago. At least Benvenuto Cellini was there to win.

Also, they have pacemakers in athletics. Most world records on the track are as a result of a pacemaker making a predetermined pace, with the record-breaker usually keeping the leader close at hand so he/she can take up the pace required to break whatever record they are seeking. In horse racing, pacemakers go hell for leather, with their jockeys riding as if entering the final furlong. It all very well Aidan saying all he runs pacemakers for is to set an even pace but what he is actually doing is running non-triers. If what Soumillion did on Tuesday was wrong, why are pacemakers thought okay?

There is an accident waiting to happen to owners who grab hold of the reins of their horse, and it is 'their' horse, often without without any discourse with the groom, to lead it in to the winners' enclosure. When an owner or one of his or her family gets kicked or trodden on, then the B.H.A. will outlaw the practice. Owners may, in effect, pay the wages, yet it is the groom that does all the unseen, dirty work, often before dawn or after sunset, often in the cold, under rain-spilling clouds, when it snows and when it blows. It should not be a kindness by the owner to allow the groom the fullest moment of glory but an act of respect for all that he or she has done on their behalf in the past. Inexperienced owners leading their horses into the cauldron of a winners' enclosure kicks the requirement for good health and safety practice down the street and up the avenue. The sport needs every owner we can get; we don't want them suffering injury or worse in front of t.v. cameras broadcasting all around the world! I rest my case.