​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.

​The winter favourite for the Epsom Derby, The Lion In Winter, is on the drift. You can now have 16/1, apparently, with some bookmakers. Given the reputation of the horse and his trainer’s notable ability to raise the phoenix from the ashes, as he has proved in the previous two Epsom Derbies, 16/1 must be worth the punt.
Now, what if the negativity going the rounds recently – Aidan believing it would be a difficult for Ryan Moore to get off Delacroix in favour of The Lion In Winter, his disappointing run in the Dante and the drift in the betting market – is just a ploy by his canny Coolmore owners to get a good price for the horse. Perhaps lumping big sums on even-money chances has lost its appeal and having smaller amounts on at a poor man’s price is the new excitement for them?
Tabor, Smith and co are known to like a punt and often back Aidan’s judgement with their hard-earned cash. That 16/1 will look pretty juicy if come Wednesday, declaration day for the Derby this year, Ryan Moore’s name appears beside that of The Lion In Winter. He certainly would not be 16/1 for very long afterwards.
Of course, the more likely explanation for the drift is that bookmakers are luring punters in with an unbelievable valuation of the colt’s chance at Epsom. Perhaps they have heard a whisper that the colt will be diverted to an easier option elsewhere or the whispering is chatter that the horse has not progressed since the Dante as Aidan had expected. It is all speculation.
I have nothing but admiration for Aidan O’Brien and the Coolmore organisation but it would be a shot in the arm for the sport if someone else trained and owned the winner this year. Even Godolphin winning the race would be a breath of mildly fresh air. What I would like, though, is a 100/1 winner as that would get the race on the Saturday evening news. Which is not certain to happen if Aidan and Ryan were to win yet again.

The saga of Baron Allen of Kensington and the will he, won’t he, take-up his appointment as chair of the B.H.A, continues, much to chagrin of Tom Kerr, editor of the Racing Post. In his response to the news that the Baron is insisting on continuing private talks with racing’s stakeholders – the bad barons of this long-running saga, I suggest – and will not be in his seat, ‘the chair sitting on a seat’ – it makes no sense, does it? – until some time after June 2nd, the date that was presumably on the contract.
Now then, yesterday I led myself to believe that Baron Allen was to be Julie Harrington’s successor. He is not. He is not Chief Executive but chair of the B.H.A. I am always confused when it comes to the machinations and role-play within the British Horseracing Authority. As I am confused as to whether it should be horse racing or horseracing? The Irish prefer the latter.
Tom Kerr is right, though, to have his arse in his hands about all of this. As he said, it is an embarrassment to have neither a chair of the B.H.A. or a chief executive at a time when so much heavy artillery is coming in our direction. You would think it a good money-saving exercise to combine the positions of chair and C.E.O. and for the lucky incumbent to be expected to work a 40-hour, 5-day week.

To continue with the previous topic. I believe this old sport of ours belongs as much to the punter as the bookmaker, as much to the stewards as the starters, as much to the jockeys as the racecourse owners, as much to the trainers as to the people they employ – you get my drift.
When these positions in the governance offices of the B.H.A. come-up for grabs, I would like to see an end to the ‘jobs for the boys’ charade that has yet to be seen as of any benefit to the sport. Open-up the candidature to include anyone currently or formerly employed in the sport. How can we have any confidence that Baron Allen was the best candidate for the job when his experience of the sport is, at best, minimal. I am not suggesting his knowledge of the worlds of business and politics would not be useful to the sport but in my opinion someone from that background should be employed as an advisor to a chair or chief-executive, someone with a ledger load of knowledge of the sport from the muck-barrow to the top hats of Royal Ascot and everything in between. Would Baron Allen know what a surcingle is? A claiming race?
I would like to have the election of a chair or C.E.O. decided upon by all sectors of the sport and not by the B.H.A. I would like to see 3 or 4 candidates addressing all the relevant stakeholders in turn, with debates on I.T.V. and the racing channels, followed by a public vote, with, as I said, anyone employed in the racing industry, plus racegoers and life-long enthusiasts casting a vote. It is our sport, too, as much as it is those who work on our behalf at the B.H.A.

​Why is it that the Jockey Club’s chair and senior steward is Dido Harding, owner of a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner, former a successful amateur jockey and currently the starter for the Weston and Banwell Harriers point-to-point, while the incoming, if he actually arrives, B.H.A. chief executive, Charles Allen, was unknown to the racing world until he was announced as Julie Harrington’s successor.
To my eyes, a man with no experience or insight into the world of finance and big corporations, would not the former be a better candidate for the B.H.A. job and the latter better suited to the position at the Jockey Club? Perhaps someone might organise a job swap, if Baroness Harding could be persuaded to agree. Not that a swap might be necessary, given that a spat about governance could yet leave Charles Allen turning his back on the B.H.A..
Of course, the mystery is why this uncertainty has erupted, only a few days away from taking up his new appointment, one of several big salary jobs Lord Allen has at his disposal. It is reported in the Racing Post today that his lordship has qualms about governance. Perhaps he was given to understand a whip came with the job, a whip he could crack whenever the lower ranked shareholders (and used to getting their own way) got uppity and without a whip, he considered the B.H.A. job an impossible job to succeed in. At his age, he would not want to be thought-of in his retirement as a failure, when success in business is almost his calling card.
It just shows what a nonsense the B.H.A. is, a governing authority that is all smiles but with dentures that fall out when quick thinking and innovation is called-for. Surely someone within its organisation can see that someone with Dido Harding’s experience and success within the sport would make a far better candidate to lead the B.H.A. than someone whose only attribute is that he is a Labour peer during a period of Labour governance of the British people.
As I said before, the B.H.A. should suffer the same fate as its predecessors, the Jockey Club. It is unfit to lead our sport and if a new organisation cannot be established to guide the sport through the choppy waters ahead, the stakeholders tripartite, or whatever it is called, should be dismantled and a racing czar appointed in its place. The sport needs a dictator, though a kindly and accomplished one.

In the ‘Another View’ column of the Racing Post today, Daniel Hill makes the suggestion that tomorrow’s rather tepid, if top-heavy, race programme could have had life and exposure given to it if the Epsom executive had gone ahead with its plan to rejuvenate the Epsom Derby meeting by running the Oaks this Saturday, followed by the Derby the following Saturday, and the Coronation Cup either next Wednesday or Thursday.
It is an okay idea, except that I believe the order should be Coronation Cup this Saturday, the Derby on the Wednesday, with the draw for stalls position sometime during the Saturday, with the Oaks the following week-end. To facilitate the Derby draw being closer to the actual day of the race, I would like to see a race-day on the Sunday after the Coronation Cup, perhaps a charity day to raise funds for the R.o.R..
I remain wedded to the proposal that the Derby should return to the first Wednesday in June and at the very least Epsom should trial the idea for a period of three-years to determine if there is an appetite for a mid-week Derby by race-goers. If the Cheltenham Gold Cup can be run on a Friday, why is a daft idea to run the Derby on a Wednesday. The Melbourne Cup, a meeting which everyone cites as an example as to how the Derby meeting could be staged, is run on a Tuesday.

‘A Racing Mind’ a film documenting how Lilly Pinchin has overcome, through medication and willpower, A.D.H.D. and, perhaps by coincidence, during a period when she rode out her claim, has now been taken up by Amazon and can be streamed right this moment. Having seen it on YouTube as a 4-parter, now it is an hour-long standalone film, I can honestly say it is one of the best documentaries on the subject of racing I have seen. I hope everyone in racing that has access to Amazon (I do not) streams the film which might pave the way for Amazon to show more racing content.

​I suppose if I were to be a better hearted, kinder, person, I would forgive and forget, and I do believe people, though not murderers, rapists, paedophiles, animal abusers and dopers, should be given a second chance in life if they have proved themselves worthy of a second chance. I do not know Greg Fairley, had forgotten about him until reading the front page of the Racing Post this morning, with my first reaction being that the B.H.A. should not grant him a licence to return to riding as a professional jockey.
Greg Fairley was a rising star as a youngster, having the backing of Mark Johnston and was champion apprentice in his time. For whatever reason, he allowed himself to fall victim to felons who twisted his arm to stop horses on their behalf. He had his riding licence revoked for 12-years and was warned-off all B.H.A. licenced premises. He has served his time, much like someone coming out of prison, and that, apparently, is good enough for some people to think it appropriate to allow him to return to the sport.
Given he is now 39, might even be 40 when he returns to the weighing-room, I believe it might serve as a probationary period, to gauge if he has changed himself from villain to a man of integrity, if he was only allowed to return as an amateur. For someone who was thrown-out of the sport as a cheat, it is as far as forgiveness is concerned that I personally will extend my charity towards him and others like him.

Windsor is to revert to a figure-of-eight circuit for its National Hunt racing from next season. I dare say they must have received more negative comments after its two-meetings last season than they let on and for Windsor to continue as a jumps course the figure-of-eight was the only way to proceed. Personally, I am pleased by the return to the old set-up as along with Fontwell it gives the course a distinction that takes it out-of-the-ordinary. We need more variation in racecourses, especially over jumps, and would like to have a racecourse in mimicry of Auteuil, with all its different design of obstacle that makes it more akin to a 3-Day event than a run-of-the-mill British steeplechase course. We could learn so much to our benefit from the French and the Irish, and it pains me to say it.

The Curragh is ‘dead as a door-nail’, apparently and no one alive or dead can resurrect it from the stillness of its attendees, at least that is Richard Forristal’s opinion and he would know far better than me or you. 
I do have an idea they might follow for their poorly attended Guineas meeting. Instead of going from 3-days to 2, go from 3-days to 1. Have a 9-race jamboree (The World Pool insists on 9-races) featuring both Guineas races, the Group races and the most valuable handicap. If that does not pack them in perhaps my next idea might lead to bigger crowds in the near future. Construct a National Hunt course. Get in the real fans of the sport and perhaps they will return for a flat fixture. Leopardstown, Fairyhouse, Galway and Punchestown have no problems when it comes to packing out the stadia. It is not as if there is not the room for a National Hunt course at the wide-open spaces of The Curragh.

At Fairyhouse today there is an Optional Claiming race. If you look-up the career history of Golden Miller you will discover that towards the end of his career that he twice ran in the Optional Selling Chase at Birmingham (1937 & 1938) winning both times. Given that the conditions of the race at Fairyhouse allow horses to run in the race without the risk of being claimed, though horses can also run and be claimed for no more than 12,000 Euros, I only assume the race run at Birmingham allowed horses to run without the threat of being put up for auction if they were to win or be claimed if they did not win.
I am not sure I like claimers that can also not be claimers. It is akin to’ is it foul-play or is not foul-play’. It is not neither one thing or the other but both things at the same time. That Golden Miller was eligible for that Birmingham race slants me toward being critical of such races and hope they do not blossom.

​Tom Marquand, to give him his due, is taking the struggle to achieve decent facilities for jockeys at racecourses in this country straight to those who might be doing more to takeaway Tom’s need to take photographs of the conditions he and his colleagues must endure. Redcar is the latest racecourse to deserve his wrath. It must be galling to arrive back in Britain after a 14-hour flight from Hong Kong, where racecourse facilities are of a standard that would do justice to a five-star hotel, drive straight from London to Redcar and then find unsanitary conditions to warm-up, with a mat squeezed between two rows of benches and the exercise bike in the laundry room.
There is an opportunity here for an enterprising jockey with a need for a second income. While it is the responsibility of the racecourse to provide changing areas, showers, perhaps saunas and ice-baths, and space for the valets to undertake their work, perhaps the warm-up areas could be out-sourced. Warm-up areas could be achieved with pop-up arenas housed in a moderately sized marquee. 
I realise there is considerable expense in setting-up a business supplying exercise bikes, perhaps weights and other gym equipment, as well as the marquee and lorry to transport everything to the racecourse, and there would be a question-mark over how much a racecourse would pay to hire the marquee and equipment per day, with perhaps, just a suggestion, you understand, the jockeys themselves putting a few quid in the kitty to defray cost of transportation. Yet I am surprised no one has thought this might be a ready-made solution to the rumbling problem.
Perhaps Tom might be persuaded to loan someone the money to set-up the business.

French Galop’s 20% reduction in prize-money, though chastening, is an idea that should spread. It is my understanding that Group I’s, classics and the workaday racing would be protected from the cuts, with Group 2’ and 3’s suffering the most.
Although I agree classic races and the more important and historic Group 1’s should be worth high six-figure purses, chucking an added £100,000 at these races never makes them a better race or entices a better quality of horse. If a sponsor decides to, or is persuaded to, increase their donation to the prize-money fund, that money would achieve greater all-round benefit to the sport, if it were diverted to bolster prize-money at the lowest levels of the sport, with the sponsor given in return ‘free publicity at the lesser racecourses to benefit from the ‘enforced’ revenue stream.
In this vein, I suggest 20% be diverted from the lesser Group 1’s and all Group 2 and 3 races, and listed races, to ensure there is one race per card with £10,000 going to the winning owner. Even if only 10% were diverted in this manner it would help where help is most needed.
It makes my blood boil to read that a race with a high six-figure prize pot to the winner is to have its value increased by another £50,000 or some such amount, especially when there is racing on the same day where no race is worth more than £5,000 to the winner. It is no wonder we cannot attract owners from Ireland and France when there is absolutely no hope of them even breaking even on their training fees.

Not so sure I approve of the Racing Post featuring all week the unholy goodness of French racing. There are already too many British-based owners with horses trained in France and Ireland and here is the industry newspaper giving Scott Burton free rein to big-up French racing, French-based English and Irish trainers and the huge prize-pots just waiting to be hoovered-up by any British-based owner pissed-off with the disparity between prize-money won and training fees paid out.

Sad to read the announcement of the retirement of Kyprios, perhaps the best, though not the most popular, stayer of recent times. I was of the opinion that Yeat’s record of 4 Ascot Gold Cups was there for the taking. But it is not to be. The injury he picked-up recently is not severe but as always Coolmore is putting the welfare and future happiness of the horse first, and doubtless there is a covering shed waiting for him in the Coolmore organisation. I dare say Ryan Moore is going to miss him as it could be guessed that he is one of Ryan’s favourites.
Incidentally, my favourites stayers of all-time are: Trelawney, Persian Punch Stradivarious and Trueshan. Let us all pray for a wet Royal Ascot to give the old horse at least one chance of running in the Gold Cup.

​In his contribution to the Racing Post’s ‘The Story of Horse Racing in 20 Races’, Lee Mottershead brings into some sort of context the distant age in which seeded the future of National Hunt racing. In 1836, the year of William Lynne’s great invention, the siege of the Alamo was in its seventh day. I can also add that 1836 was the year of Queen Victoria’s coronation. 1836 was undoubtedly a different age and Britain a totally different country to one we suffer nowadays.
William Lynne’s invention was that before his Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, the few and far between National Hunt meetings were staged in open countryside, where viewers had neither the benefit of a grandstand nor the facility to be able to witness the start and finish of a race, the winning post being anywhere up to 5-miles from where the race started. The enclosed National Hunt racecourse was wholly William Lynne’s idea and I believe Aintree should memorialise his name with a race run annually in his honour.
It is argued, and it is a fact I have never queried, that when the question is asked ‘Which horse won the first Grand National’, Lottery is not necessarily the correct answer. Some would contest The Duke is the right answer as he won the first two runnings of the Grand Liverpool Steeplechase, the race that three-years later morphed into the Grand National. Both races, it appears, were run over the same course and distance and the same fences. So, is the correct answer Lottery or The Duke? I would suggest the former as he won a race named the Grand National. The Duke won two stagings of a race with a completely different name, even if the two races are twins born of the same father.
There are many books on the origin and history of the Grand National, though my favourite, and I wish someone would go to the trouble of writing and publishing a second volume, is Reg Green’s ‘A Race Apart’, which for the years covered by the author – the book covers every renewal of the race up to and including Mauri Venture’s win in 1987, was, no doubt, a labour of love. It is a book I will never part with until death, and I am still considering having it sealed in a plastic wallet and having it consigned to my grave as part of the grave goods I will ask my other half to gather-together on the joyous day of my internment.

The thinking of both the Irish stewards and the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board never fails to baffle me. Ted Walsh has had his 3,000 euro fine rescinded after his accusers cleared him of any wrong-doing resulting in the riding of Ta Na La at Wexford last week. Bizarrely, though, the horse remains banned for sixty-days, which means obviously that the mare’s owner also suffer from the riding of the horse even though his name was never on the charge-sheet. The rider, Shane O’Callaghan chose not to appeal and remains suspended for 14-days. So, this is the question I am asking myself, was there foul-play or not. How can Ted Walsh be found on appeal to be innocent of all charges, yet the horse, jockey and owner have black marks against their name?

As I have said before, as far as summer jumping is concerned, Britain should copy, at least in part, the Irish model of festival meetings, though when it comes to the rest of the year Britain should study closely the way the French do jump racing. And it starts with our trainers, owners, breeders, if there is anyone still breeding jumpers in this country, followed by consultations with the B.H.A. 
In France, they start their jumpers earlier than in Britain and Ireland. Horses we would refer to as ‘store horses’ are broken as two-year-olds and by age three they are jumping some form of obstacles. Hence there is great emphasis on three and four-year-old hurdle races. Also, the French hurdle is a smaller version of a normal French steeplechase fence and I just wish we could abandon our traditional hurdle and begin to introduce the French hurdle to our racecourses.
I do not suggest all our racecourses adopt the French system of eight (?) different types of fences on each circuit as I feel the plain and open ditch is enough variety, though one racecourse changing to the Auteuil way of doing things might become beneficial to the sport. French racing has more in common with the origins of National Hunt than the two countries that pioneered racing over obstacles and that in a small measure should be addressed.
The French have overtaken the Irish, and left British breeders’ miles in arrears, when it comes to breeding hardy jumpers, jumpers that in the main jump and stay and have an abundance of class. When will we next have a British-bred winner of the Cheltenham Gold Cup or Aintree National? Never, I suggest, unless some radical consideration is given to the race programme in Britain.

​To return to the Newmarket 2,000 Guineas and the criticism of Kieran Shoemark’s ride on Field of Gold. Having the data provided to him by both the form book and Kieran Shoemark’s own critique of the ride he gave Field of Gold, Colin Keane produced a copybook ride to win the Irish 2,000 Guineas. John Gosden described the ride as ‘brilliant’ yet when a jockey is on by far the best horse in the race and there are no bumps in the road from stalls to winning post, ‘brilliance’ is not required, even if ‘keeping it simple’ is perhaps a possible definition of ‘brilliance’.
Now let us look at the Tattershall Gold Cup on Sunday. To use modern parlance, Colin Keane on White Birch was all dressed-up with nowhere to go in the final furlong, trapped on the rails and last in line to free himself of the queue in front of him. Circumstances played against him, I agree. But why was his ride not judged to be as ‘poor’ as the ride Shoemark supposedly gave Field of Gold at Newmarket? Explain to me what defines a poor ride? Colin Keane had more than one bullet in the barrel and yet due to making a wrong decision during the race his gun went unfired. Whether he would have won with a clear run cannot proved one way or the other, in the same way no one can say with any degree of certainty that Ruling Court would not have pulled out more if Field of Gold had headed him at any stage in the 2,000 Guineas.
Colin Keane is, I have no doubt, one of the best jockeys riding in the world today. My point is this: Kieran Shoemark is not one of the worst and his ride at Newmarket did not deserve the humiliation of being removed from his position as first jockey at Clarehaven.

In his column today, Lee Mottershead makes the argument for returning to the days when jump racing finished in May and started again in August. I have long complained that there was a) too much summer jumping and that b) what summer jumping there is during the hotter months should be structured around ‘local festivals’, as is the case in Ireland. I also believe there should be far less all-weather racing through the summer and autumn months, thereby freeing up horses to run on the turf to bolster field sizes and allowing prize-money saved to bolster prize-money on the turf.
Lee Mottershead makes use of the ‘oceans are boiling and the ice-shelfs are melting’ narrative -neither of which is true by the way (Heartland Institute. Look them up) – and that water preservation will become a huge fact of life going into the future, which is perhaps true, though more due to the number of illegal migrants in the country than a lack of adequate rainfall.
It is all too easy to say ‘I am not interested in jumping through the summer months so let’s just get rid of it’ as too many people earn a living from jump racing in the summer months. The problem is the jumps season (proper) ends too early and begins too early. Let the jumps season go to the end of May, allowing our smaller courses to benefit from the two bank holidays and begin again in late September when, crossed-fingers, there is less likelihood of firm ground. In between June and the August bank holiday, which is where I would end the ‘summer jumping programme’, there should be a limited number of jumps meeting based around, as they do in Ireland, around festivals, with ‘festival meetings’ with a valuable handicap as the major race of the two, three or four-day meeting. It works to great effect in Ireland, why would it not work in Britain?

Hells Bells for someone of my age and experience it is annoying when a craven youth of 23 writes a piece for the ‘Another View’ column in the Racing Post that nails an argument to the wall of which there is no comeback. His name is Oliver Barnard and he pours scorn on Great Britain Racing’s first advertisement in its ‘Going is Good’ campaign. My criticism could be defined as it was largely ‘inoffensive’. I think I used the word ‘fluffy’. Young Oliver, backed-up by the opinion of his non-racing mates, was more decisive and on point. ‘Crap’ or words to that effect was how he chose to underline his feelings on the subject. G.B.R. take notice and get your act together. 
Good on you, Oliver, you young scamp.