(Stardust Memories, pictured, was a tailed-off last), was still pleasing, because it was nice finally to see this lovely kind filly make her debut and, while the run in itself was appalling, I think that it's not unreasonable to believe that she will improve henceforth. After all, Ex Con ran equally badly on his debut before doing much better subsequently. Ted Durcan appeared to consider it the debut of a horse who might do well in the fullness of time, and I'm certainly not going to argue with that.
Folkestone on Monday was notable for being the meeting at which Kieren Fallon really hit his stride. He'd had one win to show for four meetings over the two days of Friday and Saturday, and then he'd ridden in Germany without success on the Sunday. But on Monday the floodgates opened: he had three rides for Luca and won on them all, and one ride (pictured)for George Margarson which finished second, beaten a head (by William Carson, whose victory was a deserved reward for his diligent pre-race track-walking). It was thus no wonder that when we got back to town in the evening the blackboard outside the White Lion at the top of town, which had been counting down the days until his come-back and which had announced his return with the words 'Thunderbirds Are Go', now read 'Normal Service Resumed'.
The third leg of Kieren's and Luca's treble came on Ordoney in our race, and I think that I'd worked out by that time that we were unlikely to win, as Kieren at the start of the afternoon had said that that horse was the best of their three chances and would win if he was as good as he looked at home. So Ordoney duly became the third horse to be given a drink in the winner's enclosure by travelling head lad Barry Baxby, and he provided the third opportunity of the afternoon for Sara Cumani to be interviewed by Graham Dench, as shown in this photograph.
The only slight downside to Monday came courtesy of a rule which I don't think should exist. This rule, which makes a mockery of the whole concept of advance declaration of jockeys, says that if a jockey's mount is a non-runner, he can be put onto a different horse, thus replacing the jockey who is meant to ride that horse. As Ethics Girl had previously been ridden to victory by both Alan Munro and Richard Mullen, it was only natural that Alan was the first choice on Monday (bearing in mind that Richard was riding at Newcastle). Unfortunately Alan was engaged to ride a horse trained by Peter Chapple-Hyam for Mark McStay. I had made no arrangements until declaration time on Saturday morning in case McStay's horse should end up not being declared, but declared he was; so I booked Hayley Turner (pictured on the filly), a very satisfactory substitute.
Anyway, come Monday morning, Laura Way, Alan's agent, rung me to say that Alan's horse had been scratched, so he was available if I would like to use him. The answer was that I would, as she knew, love to use him as he was my first choice for the mount - but that, as she knew, Hayley was booked, and it was against my principals to dishonour the verbal contract which I had made with Hayley by taking her off the filly. One might say that this was being more theoretical than pragmatic, but in fact the decision proved not to be to our disadvantage because Hayley, unsurprisingly, gave the filly a faultless ride.
Anyway, my point is that I should not have been put in this position. Temptation was put in my way to do something which is clearly contrary to all acceptable ethical standards. It's just not on to book a jockey and then tell him or her at the last moment that the verbal contract was figuratively being torn up because a better jockey had become available. I know that many/most participants in the sport believe this to be acceptable, but that doesn't make it right: they are wrong, because it is clearly wrong. And it shouldn't be allowed. Of course there are going to be times when the jockey in the morning papers doesn't ride the horse, but these should only be times which are unavoidable (injury, illness, traffic delays, failing to do the weight etc.) and not simply because a (ostensibly) better jockey has become available. So it's wrong from the punters' and racegoers' points of view that the rules allow this switch; wrong from the jockeys' point of view (because it doesn't increase the amount of rides given to jockeys as a whole, with every ride picked up by one rider being one simultaneously lost by someone else; and because in general it benefits those jockeys who least need and deserve help - ie the popular and unprincipled ones - and disadvantages those who most need protection); and wrong from the point of view of owners and trainers, because it puts one in an unpleasant situation of having to decide between what one knows is the correct course of action and what one would actually like to do but could only do with a bad conscience. And the trainers and owners who do take advantage of this rule - ie the ones with no scruples - are the very ones who should not have rules written for their benefit, because the rules should be written to try to contain the bad behaviour of such people, rather than to give it free rein. I can see that there is an argument that when a jockey is subject to a retainer he might be able to be re-directed, but even then I'm not certain that this practice should be allowed, and I'd say that a riding fee (and percentage if applicable) should then be paid to the removed jockey, in addition to the monies paid to the retained jockey who replaces him.
So that's my high-horsing for the day. It's a bad rule and, in an activity which is meant to be a sport and which is meant to be conducted in a sporting and decent manner, it is a disgrace to the sport that such a rule exists. The happy footnote to this story, other than the fact that staying loyal to Hayley did not prove to be costly (I'm careful there not to say that it didn't prove to be a bad decision, because it would have been the right decision irrespective of how well or otherwise Hayley had ridden), was that Alan was very pleased that I didn't ask him to step into the breach, because he told me that he feels that the rule shouldn't exist, that he has taken it badly in the past when he has been a victim of the rule by being replaced, and that he wasn't even particularly happy about Laura making me aware of the potential to call him up because he would have felt very uncomfortable indeed about telling Hayley that he had jocked her off. I was very pleased to hear that Alan's view was the same as my own, and I certainly wasn't surprised by it because he's a decent and thoughtful person well capable of distinguishing between right and wrong (unlike most people, so we're told, if the news story about most potential jurors nowadays failing the standard test to check whether they can cope with this supposedly basic concept). And it certainly made things easier that we were on the same wavelength.
So now it's onwards and upwards to Bangor tomorrow (with To Be Or Not To Be due to run in my absence at Kempton in an hour's time) where Anis is finally set to make her second racecourse appearance, four months or more after her winning debut. I'm looking forward to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment