GALWAY AND GOODWOOD, BOW ECHO & 28 DOWN TO 10.

I realise that tradition, something I defend time and time again, is a determining factor in the dates for the major festival meetings but shouldn't we, in tandem with Ireland, be putting the sport before history during these times of hard knocks? In Britain, as in deed in Ireland, this week it is a quiet period highlighed by the Shergar Cup on Saturday. As much as I used to love the Shergar Cup, even if it still pulls in one of Ascot's largest attendance outside of the Royal Meeting, it is not high on the list of the most important meetings of the year. You see, and this most likely will go down like a sack of spuds dropped on the foot of a much-loved granny by many, I cannot understand the gain in having Galway and Glorious Goodwood taking place at the same time. Surely one or the other could be scheduled for this week, with perhaps Galway favourite to be moved into starting in August. Colin Keane would possibly approve of a change that would cut-out an awful lot of flying to and from home for him.

This is a quiet week; last week was frenetic, with historic and valuable races at both fixtures. To move Goodwood back in the calendar would make it too close to York's Ebor meeting, whereas I cannot see any good reason, outside of something local to Galway that I am in ignorance of, for the Galway Plate to headline the meeting a week later than tradition insists upon. It is not that Glorious Goodwood should by some divine right be considered of greater importance than Galway, just that it seems simpler for Galway to be staged a week later in the year than Goodwood. I would also suggest that Galway deserves to have the spotlight to themselves, rather than sharing it with Goodwood, and vice versa. And an avid racing fan cannot holiday in two places at once. To many, I am sure, it would be some kind of heaven to have one week of a two-week holiday at Glorious Goodwood and the second week at Galway.

Why must racing journalists attribute 'greatness' during the active career of a racehorse rather than making that assessment upon their retirement. Bow Echo is, undoubtedly, a top-class racehorse, perhaps, though unprovenly so, the best horse in training in Europe, though supporters of Ombudsman, Calandagan or even Scandanavia might argue otherwise. Why has 'greatness' been attached to Bow Echo, for instance, but not Scandanavia, a horse who gives the impression of being unbeatable over staying distances?

I am not knocking Bow Echo. He was mightily impressive in the Sussex Stakes, yet I agree with those who are of the opinion that he is no Frankel. I would also claim that Bow Echo is no Brigadier Gerard. He might go on to prove himself better than both, as unlikely that might be. To even get close to both of them he would have to stay in training as a 4-year-old and win over a distance beyond 8-furlongs. I just do not want Bow Echo to follow the likes of Sea The Stars and Dancing Brave of being lauded to the heavens at the end of his 3-year-old season and then be shipped-off to stud to protect his value as a stallion prospect. The truly great horses race and they race against the generation after their own 3-year-old seasons. Frankel races at 4; to even be considered in the same sentence as him, Bow Echo must stay in training next season and compete against and win against the following 3-year generation. Horses that go on to be stallions should have proved longevity, soundness in wind and limb and the ability to have won in all conditions and over differing distances.

The hanging judges of Sandown, and Judge Jennings of The Racing Post, must hang their own heads this morning after the appeals panel reduced Rossa Ryan's 28-day ban imposed on him by the Sandown Park stewards to a ban of 10-days, the longest length of ban I thought appropriate for the offence committed. To give Ryan credit, he stuck to his guns, believing, as I suggest he must still do, that he committed no offence, that he had not stopped riding. In fighting his case, he risked losing the appeal. It was a coin toss as to whether Thunder Home or Zero Error would have won the race even if Ryan had ridden like the devil himself. Ryan said his mount had given him everything and more vigorous riding would have slowed the horse more than riding out hands and heels, reminding the panel that Thunder Home was a two-year-old. The panel decided he had stopped riding and this might or might not have contributed to him losing a race he should have won. It is a decision that is hard to question.

Again, I would contend that a 10-day ben for a momentary misjudgement cannot be considered to be the equal to a 10-day ban for causing a racing incident which resulted in a fall for a jockey and horse, either of which could have been seriously injured. Judge Jennings and everyone who supported the initial 28-day ban should reflect on which holds the greater value - a punter losing money when a jockey makes an honest mistake (even though other punters will win because of that mistake) and the life of a jockey or horse. Connor Beasley made an honest mistake and Mark Winn was lucky not to have been seriously injured. The 28-days would have been appropriate in Beasley's case, even if his mistake was as honestly made as Rossa Ryan's.