FIELD OF GOLD, SPAT BETWEEN RACECOURSES & THE ELEGANCE OF 'PRESENTED BY'.

Occasionally I take against a horse and I am later shamed when learning what a nice, friendly, individual they are. I had no love for City of Troy last season, even after he won the Epsom Derby, as everything said about him from his racecourse debut to his last race and final disappointment at the Breeders Cup, was about the marketing of him as a stallion. So many of the Coolmore Derby winners win moderate versions of the Epsom Derby and frequently never increase their reputation there after. That said, the Epsom Derby would be dead in the waters without the support of Coolmore.

Field of Gold is the latest recipient of my negativity as people keep making excuses for him every time he is beaten. Also, I thought it was unfair that Kieran Shoemark received all the blame for the horse failing to win the 2,000 Guineas, with John Gosden, a man I greatly respect, washing laundry in public and not accepting that everyone makes a mistake in life and that in giving that person a second or third chance they themselves are seen in a better light. I suspect Gosden's hand was forced by outside forces and his decision to sack Shoemark should not sway my opinion of the horse, an innocent victim, of course. Which, given his later poor performances, might suggest he was more to blame for his Guineas defeat as the jockey might be guilty of not covering himself in glory.

Every time I see Field of Gold in the parade ring I cannot stop thinking what a great prospect he would be for the Triumph Hurdle. He is as handsome a grey as you could imagine and for a colt he may well be a lovely person but every step along the way this season will be linked to achieving the highest covering fee that can be justified given his racecourse performances. No chances will be taken, no experiments over longer distances. This horse will be looked upon as an investment that must not reduce in value. Those in anticipation of seeing him in action soon will be disappointed by the news that the horse is presently off-games due to a bacterial infection which requires bedrest and a course of antibiotics. They hope to have him back for Royal Ascot. Just don't hold your breath as it might be a case of one thing after another followed by early retirement to protect his stud value.

Why are the initials of the Racecourse Association R C A and not R A. Racecourse is one word, it is not race course. So, already I am against them in their spate with the Jockey Club gang of Ascot, Goodwood, Newbury, York and Chester, though the latter was not a signatory to the letter to the Racecourse Association informing them of the rebels desire for an 'urgent review of the body's governance 'to support industry change'. The R.C.A. (really, it's damned annoying having to use initials that do not reflect the actual title of the body involved) were given to the end of April to come-up with a response. Today is May 1st. Felicity Bernard, representing Ascot, does not give the impression of being a natural rebel as it is hard to imagine her upturning desks or emptying rubbish bins onto plush carpets, is threatening to remove her racecourse from the umbrella of the Racecourse Association, a move that would likely be followed by Jockey Club racecourses, including Aintree and Cheltenham, Goodwood, Newbury, York and Chester. And that would mean an internicine war between two opposing forces and that is not good news for the sport as with so much conflict already within the powers of influence the Racing Post might be forced to appoint a Conflict Editor and create a new department to keep on top of all the bombshells, handshake and self-indulgent verbiage taking place at all the theatres of battle.

Not only do I believe racehorses should receive appropriate and respectful names, I also believe the title of races, the historic titles, should be preserved and not ditched in favour of the name of a sponsor. George Ward, I believe, with his Vistaprint and similar, who started this dismissal of historic titles in favour of the name of his businesses and if I knew where he is buried and I would visit his grave to write something rude on his gravestone!

It is Kentucky Derby weekend this weekend, with the Kentucky Oaks today or tonight given which continent you live on. Now, let's be clear, I am no admirer of U.S. racing. I hate dirt racing and I hate the use of substances banned in Europe routinely used by U.S. trainers, though perhaps less so nowadays. What I do like about U.S. racing is its protection of race titles, though the Race for the Roses is likely to be titled The Longines Kentucky Derby. Which is classier than the Betfred Derby but still wrong in my book. 

Today (or tomorrow or tonight) the Alysheba Stakes is Presented by U.S. Army, as odd as that might seem, the military sponsoring a horse race. The Modesty Stakes Presented by Veritas Prism. The Edgewood Stakes presented by Accenture.

Of course neither the Kentucky Derby or Oaks is run over the historic distances for such titles races, with the Oaks run over 9-furlongs. To my mind the word, when associated with horse racing, should be trademarked as a race traditionally and historicially run over 12-furlongs and any 'Derby or Oaks' staged in any country should be run over 12-furlongs or have the words Derby or Oaks removed from the title.

Come on, hands up, which is more elegant - The Epsom Derby Presented by Betfred or the Betfred Derby?