The best laid plans of mice and men

One never knows what is around the corner. Everything was running smoothly on Friday afternoon when I was writing this review of the past week - but since then things haven't gone at all to plan, so this, eventually being half-heartedly put up three days later, is now very out-of-date. However, I'll put it up anyway as there might be something of interest in it. You might have noticed that the two intended runners to which it refers - Risky Cry and Take Me There - did not take part, the former because he had a slight mishap (only a temporary setback) at exercise on Saturday morning, and the latter because the ground was too wet. However, one has to get used to things not going according to the script, and in the great scheme of things those are only very minor setbacks. So what follows below is how last week was looking up to mid-afternoon on Friday.

It's been a quiet week, which is good as there is always plenty of administration to be done during the first week of a month, so it's good to have a few relatively free afternoons. Next week is shaping up as a very full one, with Risky Cry due to run at Market Rasen on Sunday, Take Me There a possibility for Plumpton on Monday (we'd like to run him, but the ground will need to dry up, which it may) - and then of course there is plenty of televiewing to be done Tuesday to Friday inclusive. After which Kadouchski might run at Uttoxeter on the Saturday. So that will keep me busy. All is fine with Risky Cry, who schooled well under William Kennedy on the Links last Sunday; although sadly William won't be able to ride him in his race as he is obliged to go instead to Warwick. That's a shame, but we'll be ok because Seamus Durack will ride, and that's fine because he's a good jockey and one whom I like.

With Cheltenham looming, there was a nice curtain-raiser in Newmarket last night when the Friends of the National Horseracing Museum put on 'An evening with Sir Peter O'Sullevan' in the Jockey Club. This was really, really good, and very well timed: so many of Sir Peter's reminiscences revolved around past Cheltenhams. The highlight for me was his account of Attivo's story, and we saw the complete film of Attivo's Triumph Hurdle, which was pretty much an all-round O'Sullevan triumph: he bred the horse, who was by his old horse Be Friendly, owned him, napped him in the Daily Express (which was sponsoring the race at the time) and was the commentator. It was great to hear all about it, including Attivo's unorthodox route to victory (he had been beaten in sellers on the Flat at the ages of both two and three), and it was quite a sobering thought to realise just what a good horse he was: can one imagine nowadays a horse being so dominant as to start odds-on favourite in a 21-runner Triumph Hurdle despite being ridden by a virtually unknown 7-lb claimer who wasn't allowed to claim his allowance? It just couldn't happen!

Another great recollection was his tale of dining with Pat Taafe and Willie Robinson the evening before they rode Arkle and Mill House in the clash of the titans which was the 1964 Gold Cup. He said that both jockeys declared themselves absolutely certain that they were going to win - and both independently took him to one side afterwards to tell him not to pay attention to what the other one had said! We know the result, of course, now (and we saw the film last night) - and Sir Peter was good enough to admit that he napped Mill House! Of his Flat racing memories, we heard a bit about Be Friendly, but for me the stand-out was hearing him declare that he feels that Sea Bird and Ribot have been the two best horses during his time in racing, with him having a marginal preference for the former.

Sir Peter's talk closed with some royal reminiscences, which included the film of Highclere's 1,000 Guineas. This prompted Stuart Williams to raise a very good point during the closing question-and-answer session. Stuart pointed out that all the jockeys in that race rode the finish either with the whip in the backhand position (in which it cannot be used to hit the horse particularly hard) or just with hands and heels; and asked Sir Peter what in his opinion has brought about the change which nowadays (ie mid-'70s onwards) has seen jockeys far more reliant on vigorous whip use was traditionally the case. Sir Peter agreed very much with Stuart's observation and opined that the change has been one in the wrong direction, but said that he doesn't know what has brought it on. It is a good point, and one worthy of investigation. Interestingly, in any recollections Sir Peter had of great jockeys he has seen and known - of which Harry Wragg, Rae Johnstone and Scobie Breasley, as well as Lester, seemed top of the tree - he never referred to them as being "strong" (which is the most commonly used compliment with modern pundits) rather referring to their tactical acumen, judgement of pace etc. That's interesting, and for me that is the key. Nowadays, when one hears the merits of jockeys discussed, one could be excused for thinking that most observers only watch the last furlong of the race, and form their opinions solely on which jockeys look most vigorous at that point (which isn't necessarily the same as which jockeys are most effective at that point); when really, of course, we know that most races are won or lost before the final furlong is reached, and which rider is the "strongest" is generally of minimal relevance. We had a classic example on BBC on Grand National day last year when William Kennedy finished second on an outsider, only being run down in the closing stages by the Ruby Walsh-ridden favourite - which led to the inevitable brainless summary by the pundits that the strength of Ruby Walsh had proved decisive! So my view is that the pundits are as much to blame as anybody, for praising "strength" - which is normally a euphemism for vigorous whip use - ahead of far more important talents. And, quite coincidentally, I had an interesting post script to this discussion. I went home after the talk to watch a recording of the racing from Nad Al Sheba, which naturally included a few gems from James Willoughby (including this brahma: "At Nad Al Sheba, a lot of punters make the crucial mistake of looking at the form book; and if you'd done that in this race, there's no way you could have backed the winner"!). Anyway, after Asiatic Boy's victory the discussion revolved around the runners, including the winner, wandering off a straight line in the finish. I've often pondered why it is that nowadays so many jockeys are very poor at making horses run in a straight line, a skill which, as Bill O'Gorman has pointed out, Lester Piggott had mastered by the age of 12, and Edward Hide by the age of 10. I think the point had been also in the minds of Sir Peter and of Stuart Williams, so it was perfectly timed that James Willoughby should then opine that "they're so active, modern-day jockeys, (and as a result) they wander all over the shop", while pointing out that the stiller styles favoured by, say, the yanks are much more conducive to keeping a horse balanced and therefore helping him to run straight. Not, of course, that any of that is of much relevance to us in our day-to-day existence, but it's worth thinking about nevertheless.

Another interesting point - and I'll be brief because I'm sure we've already lost a few readers - was Sir Peter's opinion that the most important change in racing in his lifetime has been the introduction of the patrol camera (which was brought in in 1960, after having been first used in Ireland in 1957 and in France in 1959). We've all read about the fallers and interference which used to feature in old-time Derbys: once the stewards could see who was fouling whom, overnight the races became much safer for horse and rider.

So that was 'An Evening with Sir Peter O'Sullevan". (And if that phrase reminds you of 'An Afternoon with Alan Partridge', think again). It was superb - and what was particularly nice was that Sir Peter, who had turned 91 (yes, 91) two days previously, seemed to enjoy it nearly as much as the large audience did. As had been the case with the previous (poorly attended) evening with Lester Piggott, Sean Magee was again an excellent co-host; he'd done a great job as the catalyst to making Lester expansive, so yesterday must have been a piece of cake for him!

That was one nice thing about yesterday, and another was that I had my first sighting of Rainbow View of the year (or rather it was the first time this year that I had knowingly seen her). She's my horse to follow for 2009. I know that two-year-old form and three-year-old form aren't necessarily that similar, but she was just so good last year. Each year we see the odd two-year-old who wins a good race with his or her head in her chest, but they don't usually keep doing so: she did so every time she ran, and I can't see how she can fail to be a star this year, unless she is injured. You may have seen the front-on photo of her in the Racing Post the other day, and she certainly didn't look particularly impressive in that; but side-on she looked strong enough, and she can certainly include me in her fan club. That was yesterday - and this morning we saw her trainer in rather an amusing situation, even if he maybe wouldn't have seen the funny side of it. As Gemma and I rode onto the Heath just before 7.00 on a beautiful frosty, misty, sunny spring morning, we saw a steaming rider-less horse, wearing a Clive Brittain sheet and being held at the bottom of Long Hill. The holder was John Gosden, and he had clearly not taken on board Lester Piggott's famous advice: "Never catch a loose horse, as you might be stuck with him all day"! The rider was nowhere to be seen, and John Gosden did indeed look as if he might be stuck with this horse for quite a long time. Eventually the rider did appear, having been ferried down the Moulton Road by car (presumably having fallen off at the top of the hill) - but when he alit from the car, he strolled as slowly as you'd ever see anyone amble over to be re-united with his erstwhile mount. If I'd been John Gosden, I'd have got really cross: John was doing him a favour by first catching and then holding this horse (I'm sure he had better things to be doing just at that moment, as there would have been sixty or so of his own horse out there somewhere on the Heath) and the very least the lad could have done would have been to show at least a little bit of haste in going to relieve him of the horse: it was just so inconsiderate. By the time we'd ridden past and away, the lad still hadn't reached the horse, but it might have been worth hanging around to see the re-uniting!