I do not have the brain-power for mathematics, so what I am about to propose is based on instinct and a nod to the past.
Though I am on board with the suggestion that Britain has too many meetings for the present horse population, I fear if there is a sufficient enough culling of meetings to provide more competitive racing, we might, in time, lose several of our smaller racecourses. To the hard-minded, this might be the road to travel, after all the sport did not experience withdrawal symptoms at the loss of Wye, Stockton, Birmingham or any of the racecourses that have sadly closed in my lifetime. I am a sentimentalist at heart, rather than a pragmatic business-minded executive who values money and profit before history and what might be. To see houses, tarmac and street lights where once sporting endeavour once thrived pulls at my heartstrings to a greater extent than when I think of former friends.
The way I look at the problem of too many race-meetings and too few horses in training is this: back in the day, six races per meeting was the norm. The problem of non-competitive races has increased due to 7, 8 and 9-race fixtures. If we were to return to 6-races per meeting, perhaps excluding the prestige meetings like Royal Ascot, Cheltenham etc, the incremental savings would, I guess, add-up to a significant number. If this idea was already implemented, over the next 3-days in Britain there would be a saving of 11-races. That would be 22 (ish) every 6-days and 44 every 12-days. Or perhaps 6-meetings-worth.
If racecourses wanted more action for their spectators – and let’s not talk betting turnover as that argument also applies to culling entire fixtures – they could stage a couple of pony races or dog races, greyhounds or trail-hound races which Carlisle have staged in the past.
In the ‘Another View’ column of the Racing Post today, the always excellent Peter Thomas argues that mares should not receive an allowance in championship races. He is correct. As he rightly proposes, championship races – Champion Hurdle, Cheltenham Gold Cup etc – are staged to discover the best of the best, even if in reality it can only ever be the best of the best on the day. No one can be of the opinion, for example, that because he won the Gold Cup last season it proves that Inothewayurthinkin is a better horse than Galopin Des Champs. And Dawn Run is held in high regard not because she was anything like one of either the greatest hurdlers or chasers but because she is the only horse to have won the two bluest of ribbon races at the Cheltenham Festival, which she would not have achieved without the mares’ allowance.
The race program for mares is a great success. I admit to a dislike of the mares’ race at the Cheltenham Festival and wish either in Ireland or Britain there was a designated Champion Mares Hurdle, forcing trainers to then run their Grade 1 two-mile hurdlers in the Champion Hurdle itself at the Festival and not to go pot-hunting with them. Overall, though, mares’ hurdles and chases often prove more competitive in Britain than similar races in Ireland which are dominated by Willie Mullins and sometimes by Gordon Elliott.
To my mind, the best horses, whether mares or geldings, should run in the best races at the most prestigious meetings. With Lossiemouth, for instance, irrespective of how strong or weak the possible opposition might be, there should be no debate on which races she will run in come March. And the Mares’ Hurdle should be transferred from the Festival to ensure this is the situation in future years.
If you can justify a 7Ib allowance for mares in the Champion Hurdle, for instance, why not an allowance for Constitution Hill given the weakness of his jumping ability or an allowance for Kopek Des Bords in the Arkle due to his lack of experience over fences compared to his opponents?