​Did anyone think the draw for the Epsom Derby that took place yesterday at the local cinema was both a bit naff and rather unnecessary? Well, that was my opinion from the moment Rishi Persad thanked the F.A. for lending them their ‘materials’. The sport can afford a £3-million+ advertising budget, yet could not go to the expense of a velvet bag and nineteen numbered balls. Shakes head, moves on. Has a re-think. It was not as embarrassing as last year’s effort which took place in Epsom High Street amongst virtually no on-lookers. If they persist in this no-show and even less interest amongst the non-racing public, do the draw from Racing Post headquarters or the studio of racing broadcaster. The racing enthusiasts may be an interest in which horse comes out of which draw but no one else will give a damn. Shakes head and moves on, again.
As long as all of the nineteen declared runners go to post, which I suspect will not be the case due to the softening ground conditions, but let us hope, the 2025 Epsom Derby will at least be a reminder of days gone by when 20-runners would be the least expected to take part. Nineteen-runners will ensure some kind of jeopardy and jeopardy makes for a more entertaining and newsworthy race.
I also believe this Derby is the most compelling Derby of recent years. It is a proper race, with one of three or four who might yet start favourites, and with at least a dozen of the runners having a legitimate chance of winning and any one of the nineteen having the opportunity to finish in the first four. The arrival of proper rain, of course, throws a spanner into all of the experts previous study of the race as now it is not only about which horses have the form and pedigree to suggest they are likely to engage favourably with the 12-furlong, but also how many will act on the softish ground? They say speed wins the Epsom Derby, not stamina. That might not necessarily be the case in 2025.
Personally, I remain wedded to the idea that Ruling Court has the class, form and pedigree to win from Midak and Stanhope Gardens, with Lambourn being the best betting value of the three O’Brien horses. Colin Keane might be on the best of the three Ballymore runners and he might just cruise past the whole lot of them in the final furlong. The old adage, there, of the speediest and classiest horse always prevailing. On the other hand, if you think back to the Dante on the flatlands of York, Keane might just have a nightmare of a ride if The Lion in Winter behaves as he did then, when even the master of the saddle had the greatest difficulty persuading him to put his head down and be at least a good representation of what an O’Brien racehorse should be. Keane will either wear the crown of victory on Saturday or he will return to the weighing room a man close to breaking point.
Usually when it comes to the races that really matter, and the Derby along with the Ascot Gold Cup are the only two flat races that really matter to me, there is a horse, jockey, trainer or owner, who I want to win, even though form suggest they have no prayer. This time around, even though it will be a delight if Derby glory goes to someone who has never savoured success in the race before, I have no bias. Colin Keane and Wayne Lorden, for instance, even though they are on Coolmore horses, deserve a day in the limelight and if there is any justice in the world Tom Marquand will surely win a Derby during his career. And though they cannot be termed ‘journeyman jockeys’ as they have already tasted big-race successes, it would be a nice touch if David Probert or Luke Morris could triumph, and if Billy Loughnane were to win at his first attempt, there would be echoes of Lester Piggott.
Yet I am suggesting that William Buick will win his second Derby, from Mikhail Barzalona, also a winning Derby jockey.
For once, I am looking forward to a race on the flat.

​When it was announced that sixty-races per year would be restricted to trainers outside of the top four stables I thought it a sensible proposal to help the less successful yet hard-working stables to survive. The holy four cried foul, threatened legal action and the proposal was quickly scuttled. To be fair, though, Irish racing has come-up with perhaps a better scheme, one the holy four do not object to. 60-races are to used as a sort of championship for the lesser Irish stables, though the holy four will be eligible to run horses in these races, they do not qualify for the ‘championship’ bonus. Points will be awarded for the first five places in these 60-races, though not necessarily, as I understand it, the first five past the post. At the end of the series, 120,000 euros will be divided-up to the top owner, trainer and jockey. Not David Power Cup millions territory but an applaudable effort to find compromise nonetheless. 

There is something about the family Bryne that excites the Dick Francis in us all. The Bryne family might believe that we are all out to get them, and they might be right. But that unseat at Wexford by Phillip Bryne had intrigue written all over it. The favourite back in second going to the last, the drifter in the market about to trot-up, the jockey falling off like a drunken man from a bar-stool – comedy or a thriller, make-up your own mind.
Equally bereft were, again, the Wexford stewards. Having falsely accused Ted Walsh of pulling fast one at their last meeting, the 3,000 euro fine they imposed quickly quashed a week later, now they decided there was nothing untoward in a jockey falling off like a fool from a horse who should have been favourite but a huge drifter in the betting, allowing the favourite to cruise to victory. We all await with baited breath the result of the I.H.R.B. inquiry into the incident. I just hope if Brynes is should be found guilty of whatever rule he might be complicit in breaking that the Wexford stewards are punished equally as hard. They have brought the sport into disrepute, whatever the findings of the official inquiry.
The always impressive Adam Macnamara said in Brynes defence, if he fell-off with intent, why leave it to the last hurdle? Mick Fitzgerald on the other hand made the arguable defence of Bryne that no jockey wants to fall-off for risk of injury. Yet history will tell you that a jockey will fall off deliberately if there is money in it for him.

In a letter in the Racing Post today, Mr. John McDonald bemoaned the number of class 5 and 6-races last Friday, suggesting ‘it was not exactly a feast for the racing connoisseur.’ I would contend that no one intended those races to be a feast for the ‘racing connoisseur’. That sector of the sport has their feast this weekend and at Royal Ascot ten-days later. As I have said many times, you can have as exciting a race at a point-to-point as you can at Royal Ascot. A seller at Wolverhampton can have as close a finish as you might have at the Ebor meeting. You can win just as much on a 20/1 winner at Southwell on the all-weather as you can on a 20/1 winner at the July meeting at Newmarket. It is all about personal perception and the need to provide races for the type of horses in the racing pool. Of course, that puts to one side the fact that there is too much racing at this time of year, both on the flat and over jumps. And certainly, too much all-weather racing during the period of now and until the end of high summer.

I have no real interest in U.S. racing. I am only interested in the Belmont Stakes, third and final leg of the U.S. triple crown, as Saffie and Jamie Osborne are attempting to win the race with Heart of Honor. What startles me, though, is that the Belmont historically is run over 12-furlongs, yet this season and last, due to Belmont racecourse being redeveloped, the third leg of the U.S. triple crown, a holy of holies, one would think, of U.S. racing, has been run over 10-furlongs due to it being held at Saratoga. Can you imagine if Epsom were unable to stage the Derby due to redevelopment or any other reason and it were staged at Newmarket, as during the 2nd world war, yet run over 2-furlongs shorter than tradition? True fans of the sport would be up in arms about it, yet in the U.S., apparently, they shrug their shoulders as if it is a matter of no concern. 
No wonder I shrug my shoulders at U.S. horse racing as if it is a matter of no concern.
Go on, Saffie, get that numbskull of a ride out of the gate like a rocket is tied to its tail and stun U.S. racing!

​Imagine a 2-mile 4-furlong chase labelled as either a ‘Grand National or a National of some kind’. Stupid, it would go against all we expect a ‘National’ should be. In Ireland, a country that should know better, they have at least two local nationals run over a distance short of 3-miles. Nationals should have a precise definition in the racing vocabulary and that should include ‘a test of stamina’.
Likewise: if the question in a quiz night is ‘what is the distance of a Derby’, the answer on the page would be 12-furlongs. That is the traditional Derby distance. In the precise definition of what can be termed a ‘Derby’, the distance of 12-furlongs should be the first requisite. Hence, I do not regard the French Derby as a proper Derby, which is why I have scant regard for it. It is one of the prime examples of why the thoroughbred breed is becoming weaker and weaker, when speed is given priority over stamina.

I viewed film footage of Midak, supplemented for the Derby, working on the Les Aigles gallops and was impressed by him. He strode away with the look and appearance of a horse who wanted to gallop, looking every bit a horse of stamina and not pure speed, which may be a factor if the ground turns soft. I was taken by him and though it would be Disney if a horse owned by the Aga Khan’s daughter should win a Derby named for the year in honour of her late father, if first impressions are to be believed, it might happen. My three for Saturday’s race are now Ruling Court, Stanhope Gardens and Midak.

Peter Thomas, the Racing Post’s senior contributor, David Ashforth excluded, is a busy bee in today’s paper. He authors both the ‘Another View’ column and the feature-piece on the clash of The Flying Dutchman and Voltigeur at York in 1851.
In his first piece, Peter Thomas, who claims to be a recreational punter even though he mixes with most of the country’s leading betting analysts, makes the false claim that Tom Segal, the legendary Pricewise at the Racing Post, puts food on the table for his family through money bet on horses. It is as if Segal works for the Racing Post as a kindness to the bosses and draws no salary, when I suspect he is paid a very healthy salary, with his winnings from his exchanges with bookmakers merely paying for holidays and picnic hampers from Fortnum and Mason.

Peter Thomas’ main contribution to the Racing Post today is his piece on the match race between The Flying Dutchman, Derby winner in 1849 and Voltigeur who triumphed at Epsom in 1850. It is great example of Thomas on best form, beginning with the regret that public hangings are no longer a spectacle on the Knavesmire. It is a thought when ideas are bandied about when comparisons are made between the numbers who attended Epsom in the past against the fewer numbers who will grace the Downs next Saturday. There are a good number of bad people I would willingly watch in chains in or from a gibbet.
What is remarkable is not that The Flying Dutchman won the race known historically as ‘The Great Match’ and the 1,000 sovereigns put up by the losing owner but that Peter Thomas neither blanched nor commented on the fact that the victor went on to win the Ascot Gold Cup and then a race at Goodwood (Goodwood Cup?) over 3-miles 5-furlongs. There was no spearing the rod in those days. Modern-day trainers would go weak at the knees if it were suggested a horse should run twice in a week. After his defeat over 2-miles in The Great Match, Voltigeur was asked to run again the following day. He was beaten, giving 37Ibs to a mare who went on to win both the Goodwood Cup and the Ebor. Proof alone, if proof were needed, that the past was indeed a different country.
When Voltigeur won the St.Leger, which he dead-heated for, only taking the prize in a re-run, he was also asked to run in the Doncaster Cup 2-days later, with a supposed run in a handicap in between. Fortunately, no other horse was declared and the handicap became a walk-over.
I recommend you search out today’s racing Post, if only to read the full account of ‘The Great Match’. Those perhaps were not the good old days but then we would be happy to see one third the number of people who witnessed The Flying Dutchman V Voltigeur at Epsom on Saturday.
 

​In his usual expertly way, Lee Mottershead in a double-page spread in today’s paper on the appointment of Jim Mullen as the Jockey Club’s group chief executive, he lays before his readers all the troubles and pitfalls awaiting him when he takes up his position this week.
Also in today’s Racing Post, trainer Stuart Williams makes clear his discontent with the delay to Baron Allen taking-up his position as chairman of the B.H.A., although many are of the opinion that it is a good thing that the Baron is spending time attempting to understand how racing’s governance works, or does not work, before committing himself to the job. As I wrote the other day, it seems Baron Allen does not have the whip he was promised that he feels needs to sort out the mess that is racing’s governance policy.
As with myself, the casual observer to this on-going pile of nonsense might think that the knot that needs untangling in British racing is that it has far too many chiefs in need of briefing and not enough knowledgeable and experienced Indians.

In a fulsome and attack-minded letter in the Racing Post today, David Catlow, managing director of the charity R.o.R., makes clear the policy of grants awarded and why some equine charities receive more while others only receive advice. I found it comforting that virtually all the different communities of the sport from jockeys to owners, trainers to auction houses, now contribute to R.o.R. funds.

In another letter to the Racing Post, Julian Richmond-Watson, chairman of the Thoroughbred Group (yet another Chief in a sport with no shortage of Chiefs) sets out what his members expect from Baron Allen if and when he takes up office.
Horse racing is awash with political agendas, chairman and chief executives manoeuvring their strategies to be considered of most relevance to the welfare of the sport. If only the sport could agree on one diehard racing man or woman to become a friendly and yet forceful dictator.

An aspect of the decision by Ascot to have no female-only team this year that has been given no credence is the removal of the once-a-year opportunity some female jockeys have had to put their heads above the parapet. The Shergar Cup has given many female riders the opportunity to a) ride a better-class of horse and b) to prove their ability to rise to the occasion.
Would this decision have been taken if Hayley Turner had not retired? I think not. And it is all very well Hollie Doyle favouring the decision on the grounds that she is a successful jockey and not simply a female jockey but, with the possible exception of Saffie Osborne, she is alone at dining at British racing’s high table and she should give a thought to the sisterhood that must ride 50/1 outsiders far more often then they ride horses with half a chance and think on the opportunity she has helped to be taken from them.
Today, for instance, Joanne Mason has a ride for William Haggas, a ride brought about by riding him a winner at the Shergar Cup a couple of seasons back. At the time Haggas expressed his surprise at how well Jo Mason rode the horse and said he would be using her in the future. Her appearance in the Shergar Cup may not have changed Jo Mason’s career to any extent, and there is little likelihood she will ever challenge Tom Marquand for his role as first jockey to Haggas, but that day has had an influence on her career, even if Haggas was the only trainer present that day who recognised what a talented jockey she is.
The likes of Nicola Currie, Josephine Gordon, Gina Mangan and all the up-and-coming female jockeys, are now deprived of the one day in the year when opportunity might have knocked for them. 
Also, now the female attendees at the Shergar Cup will not have an obvious team to support and that, I predict, will have a deflating effect on the atmosphere. The Shergar Cup is not a world jockey championship and should not be treated as if it is more than just a popular though novel event. It is a lamentable decision by the Ascot authorities and one they will come to regret.