Pleasant trips

Gus has a new favourite racecourse, and I think that Anthony was pretty impressed with it too: yes, we had a lovely trip to Epsom yesterday. Easily the most summery day of the week, yesterday peaked in the evening, during which Epsom was bathed in progressively warmer and brighter sunshine. That alone is the recipe for a pleasant trip, because Epsom, the racecourse and the Downs, is so special that, combined with nice weather, any visit there is a treat. And Hotfoot ran well to top it off. Granted, third isn't necessarily a tremendous achievement in a five-runner race, but it was the first time that she'd made the frame, and a massive improvement on her most recent outing, which had been dismal. And she hit the line strongly - and when they do that, one can generally go home happy. Having arrived there in good time, Anthony and I treated ourselves to an extensive walk with Gus (although probably not as extensive as Hannah's walk, because I'm presuming that she covered the full circuit, an option which we eschewed in favour of a more meandering stroll). Gus is great at the races because he never strays too far, being less confident of his surroundings than he is at home (where he is only obedient when he wants to be, which isn't really obedience at all, rather the fortunate coincidence of his wish and mine being temporarily the same). So that was all very pleasant, as I hope that these photographs (which mostly give an unrealistic cloudy impression of the evening, because the best of the sunshine had not yet arrived by the time we had our walk or by the time Hotfoot contested the opener - but the final picture, of Kieren Fallon and Kirsty Milczarek coming back in after finishing first and third in the third race for Saeed bin Suroor and Clive Brittain respectively, perfectly sums up the idyllic summer's evening). And the evening's icing on the cake for me was that I had a real stroke of luck. On attempting to make a phone call about ten minutes after Hotfoot's race, I discovered that my phone was not in my pocket. Well, it's bad enough when one's lost one's phone at home; but on a racecourse? 1,000/1 against ever to see it again, surely. I wracked my brains, and then tried the only long-shot I could think of: I returned to the starter's car, in which I had travelled to and from the start of Hotfoot's race - and there the phone was, lying on the back seat just where I had been sitting, and where it had presumably become dislodged from my pocket during the journey. You can imagine how relieved I was to be reunited with it, as we have all become so dependent on our mobile phones (not least for the fact that I am one of the ill-advised majority who no longer maintains a written telephone directory, instead merely storing all my numbers in the phone).

So that's good: we've had two runners this week and they have both finished third, so we just have to hope that the remaining two can follow suit and likewise acquit themselves with credit. Both Ethics Girl (Goodwood tomorrow) and Silken Thoughts (Newbury Sunday) have drawn well (they'll both jump from stall two) so that's a start - now all Ethics needs is a very strongly-run race and a lot of luck in an 18-runner field, and all Silken Thoughts needs is everything to go right - and we could have another two creditable performances to top off the week. (Note that that is the Racing Calendar's week, which appears to run Monday to Sunday, rather than the more conventional biblical week, which of course runs from Sunday to the seventh day, ie Saturday). So let's hope for the best. I'm looking forward to both outings - how, in particular, could one not look forward to a Group One raceday at the extremely special racecourse at Goodwood? (Even if it is probably unique in being a Group One raceday which contains a Group One race and no other stakes races). Anthony won't be going as he's headed home, but Gus will be accompanying us, of course, just to make sure that we're doing our best with the omens. I think that Gus would be happy to go to the races seven days a week, but Anthony would probably find that one can have too much of a good thing. I'd imagine that Anthony will be back here soon enough, though; and he'll be able then further to fill both Hugh and Gus in on what's new in the world of computer games magazines!

And this chapter's brahma? Provided by the Racing Post, of course. And I don't mean the runners-and-riders' pages, which today informed us that competitors at the minor meetings included the top-class racehorses and stallions Bold Bidder (sire of two Kentucky Derby winners) and Hot Spark, as well as the Coronation Cup winner Dean Swift and the Melbourne Cup winner Even Stevens (who ran against Bold Bidder, surprisingly enough). No, the brahma came in the report of my day at the Hatchfield Farm appeal. I'd conducted a little survey with the assistance of some of the town's trainers and their head lads, the result of which was that, taking the traffic diaries of three stables (this one, James Fanshawe's and Roger Varian's), one had found that these three stables were able to report 16 'dangerous occurences' (good phrase, much beloved by H&S brahmameisters) within a week. I'd faithfully reported this fact to the enquiry -and it inevitably had transformed itself by the time that the paper went to press into ONE STABLE (Roger's) having 16 dangerous occurences in ONE DAY, ie multiplying the frequency of dangerous occurences by 18, and unfairly portraying Roger's string (pictured filing on to the Severals on the Ides of March, funnily enough - and if it can survive that supposedly fateful day, then it can survive anything) as the most hazardous string in the world! I duly apologised to Roger for this brahma, and happily he didn't seem to fazed by it - and quite rightly so, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the stream of winners which he has been sending out all season is more than proof that his stable is far from jinxed.

All roads to lead to Mildenhall

Well, it's been a couple of interesting days. Enjoyable in parts too. It's hard to know which way the weather is going. The Jockey Club seem sure that we are in for a nice week as over the weekend they cut the grass which had been left to grow in the middle of Bury Hill to become a hay crop. Let's hope that they are right and we get a warm, dry week, at the end of which they grass will be nicely dried and ready to be baled into hay. Here's the grass lying, slowly turning into hay, soon after sunrise yesterday (not that you can see the lines of it that well as the sun still isn't too far over the horizon). It was actually a lovely morning an hour or two later, as this second photograph, of the sun blasting through the still-relatively-young cherry and silver birch trees on the Severals, with some of Roger Varian's horses walking around the inner ring. Sadly, those first few hours of Monday have been the best of the week so far, so we'll just have to take it a day at a time in seeing whether the summer holidays really are going to be summery.

The afternoon at Yarmouth was very pleasant yesterday, notwithstanding the lack of sun and lack of victory. Batgirl didn't win, but she still ran very creditably: third, beaten 1.25 lengths and a nose. You might think that third in five-runner race isn't much to write home about, but it was a competitive race in that four of the five were genuine chances - and any race over seven furlongs at Yarmouth in which one finishes ahead of the admirable Rough Rock (who finished fourth, two lengths behind Batgirl) represents a good effort. So that was fine, and again I came away very happy with the conscientious service given by Pat Cosgrave. And, although I say that there was no victory at Yarmouth (apart from the best-turned-out prize, which was a great effort by Hannah, and an achievement I think unprecedented in the history of this stable!) there was plenty of victory at Yarmouth for Exeter Road: Charlie McBride took two horses there and came home with two winners, which was a great achievement. Amoya, ridden a treat by Adam Beschizza, made all the running to win our race, and an hour earlier the debutante Speedi Mouse had made a winning debut in the seller, ridden by another very good young rider, Martin Lane. I'd say that this photograph of her pulling up after the line tells us why she got her name: Martin is far from a giant, but she certainly makes him look like one!

I had some time to kill at Yarmouth yesterday, and on the journey; so I spent it making the preparations for my trip to FHDC HQ in Mildenhall today to restate Newmarket Town Council's position (steadfastly opposed) on the Hatchfield Farm development, the appeal against whose rejection is currently being held. Anyway, now I've done that - and all I can say is that I don't want ever to be on trial! It was bad enough just facing the challenges from Lord Derby's QC Mr Boyle in this supposedly relatively pressure-free environment. I'd just about had enough when he went down a line of questioning about whether I really was representing NTC (which I'd said umpteen times that I was), about who had authorized me, and did I have documentary evidence that I had NTC's authority, and could I produce such documentary evidence (which, of course, is easy enough, as it's just a case of bringing along the minutes of the D&P Committee Meeting of 6th June, at which I was appointed NTC's spokesman - but, of course, it had never crossed my mind to bring these along, as I hadn't realised that I was effectively to be put on trial and that I was to be suspected of being some Walter Mitty who had just wandered in off the street with plans to derail the farrago by posing as a NTC representative). Anyway, I held my tongue while the urge to shout, "I'm not f**king lying, you know" was getting ever stronger, so no harm was done. And, still, I gather that I got off lightly compared to John Gosden, who seemingly was treated like the artful dodger caught red-handed last week. Keen as I was at the outset to see Lord Derby's appeal thrown out, I'm even keener now that I've been acquainted with the company which he choses to keep.

At least the sun shone

I want to move on from interference to a few observations on the whip, or rather on the misconceptions about the whip which are forced on us. I was interested, by the way, just after writing the previous chapter, to read the excellent feature in the Racing Post on Jimmy Lindley, who was very disparaging about the current bunch of jockeys. He seemed to share my views on the over-reliance on the whip which seems to have come about, and as I say I'll move on to that anon; and his observations on "the interference that seems always to occur" struck a particular and topical chord with me. I'm not, by the way, too worried about interference to horses in front of or level with one. We're told that barging one's way out is a cardinal sin, but that's not my main concern simply because I don't think that that's the primary potential cause of falls; I'm more concerned with riders failing to keep their mounts straight, allowing them to shift out or in when not sufficiently clear of the horses behind them. That's far and away the most dangerous form of interference, and that's really what the stewards should be doing an awful lot more to discourage, for the safety of horses and jockeys in general.

But I've had enough of politics on this blog for one week, so that can all wait a while. Instead, I'll just ramble on a bit about how the day's gone. It's King George Day, of course, so at the moment all eyes are on the Big Four at Ascot: Workforce, St Nicholas Abbey, Rewilding and Nathaniel. I'm very much in Workforce's camp, but we'll know in a few minutes' time. They are four lovely horses and any one of them would be a worthy winner as they all go into the race with rock-solid credentials. However, you don't need me to tell you about what's going on at Ascot: this blog is more concerned with what is going on here. That's obviously a lot less important in the great scheme of things, but it's closer to home ... Oh dear (writing half an hour later) we've just seen the race and all our nightmares came true as one Rewilding (seen in happier times, just after beating So You Think at Royal Ascot last month) broke down fatally. Truly shocking and very, very sad. Such things have happened before and will happen again, but such a stark reminder of the dangers was just awful.

I'm now continuing this the next day, and will write as if answering the question, "Apart from all that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?". Well, the answer is that, leaving aside what happened elsewhere, things were rather pleasant here. Having had such a magnificent early summer, I suppose that we can't be too surprised that, as the middle of July arrives and as summer is supposed to be starting in earnest, we seem to be arriving in autumn. Our blackberries are ripe out the back and the past few mornings we have seen the autumnal resumption of heavy dews as the nights cease to be warm. And that's over and above the fact that we have had intermittently plenty of rain. Tuesday evening saw the heaviest storm in which I've been caught for many years. The rain, albeit that it only lasted 20 minutes or so, was intense and forced its way in in several places, including into the house and into stables where there is not usually a leak. One crack of lighting, accompanied by simultaneous thunder, was very and frighteningly adjacent, the upshot of which is that we have had no electricity in the yard since then; things could be worse, though, as our neighbours in Beverley House have several electrical items which have given up the ghost altogether since the lightning strike (which, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, I failed to photograph). So this appears to be autumn - but yesterday morning was a delight. As I hope the pictures which are dotting this chapter will show. We were lucky enough to have William here, accompanied by his nephew Jamie (seen in this paragraph's first photograph, riding Asterisk with William on Kadouchski and Sara on Alcalde). Jamie had been here for a full morning earlier in the week, but yesterday he could only manage one lot, still perhaps emotionally worn out by his trip to the cinema on Wednesday to watch the Harry Potter movie - "emotional stuff"! William gave us his usual sterling service up at the Links, putting Kadouchski over fences on the AW strip (as this paragraph's second photograph shows) and Asterisk (pictured with Sara and Alcalde, then jumping the hurdles on the grass) over baby jumps, AW hurdles and normal hurdles on the grass - a luxury which we wouldn't usually enjoy in the middle of July, but which was an acceptable option after the rains earlier in the week had left the grass less firm than normal for the time of year. When Kadouchski will make his steeplechasing debut remains to be seen - it could be at Hereford in the middle of next month, but that would obviously be dependent on the weather, especially as Hereford took such a hammering in the winter that I would be very loth to run any horse on it currently if there was any suggestion of firm going. Asterisk likewise has yet to have a hurdles debut planned for her, but both should jump well when they do begin the next phase of their careers. That schooling session took place first lot, and thereafter we had the usual morning with a smattering of gallopers, some canterers, some trotters, some great views over the Heath such as the final photograph in this paragraph (taken looking up Long Hill at approximately 9am) and some brahmaizing from the dogs in the warm morning sunshine. Gus is doing such a good job of keeping the two greyhounds young - and in keeping us amused, because one really could just watch him all day (assuming that one had nothing better to do, of course). They really enter into the spirit of his lairizing, and Bean in particular is brilliant at allowing him to chase her. Of course, they're probably not too disappointed when he decides it's time to take a break to gnaw on a bone (or carrot, or sponge, or glove, or ...) as it gives them a chance to recover. It's not just we humans who aren't getting any younger!



Looking forwards, we have an interesting week of runners stretching ahead of us. Batgirl (seen enjoying some hay in the field with Ethics Girl this afternoon) goes to Yarmouth tomorrow for a five-runner race over her preferred course and distance, seemingly in good form. She obviously has to bounce back from an abysmal run at Newmarket so it would be wrong to go there with high expectations - especially as an even more notable course specialist, her old rival the bang-in-form Rough Rock, is in the field - but she's bounced back from bad runs previously, so let's hope for another creditable run from her. I won't be doing the driving on the journey to Yarmouth tomorrow which will be good as on Tuesday I have to front up before the Inspector who is deciding the fate of Lord Derby's Hatchfield Farm development appeal; I will be putting forward the Town Council's view (which favours rejection of the appeal, the council having backed the original decision to refuse Derby's application) and I can spend the journey working on my presentation. It seems as if the appellant's legal team are as aggressive towards presentations which do not support their view as if their client was on trial for murder, so I best be well prepared before I go before the lions. So that ordeal will take up much of Tuesday - and then I will have time to recover before heading to Epsom on Thursday, when Hannah is due to ride Hotfoot (pictured in the field today) in an apprentices' race. She, likewise, needs to bounce back from an atrocious run last time; but she too seems well. Then next weekend we should have Ethics Girl running on the Saturday and Silken Thoughts (pictured today firstly on her own and then enjoying some hay with Ethics Girl) on the Sunday; Ethics at either Goodwood or Newmarket, and Silken Thoughts at Newbury. Both ran well last time so, although those venues obviously imply competitive racing, each has earned the right to keep that sort of company. Let's hope that we're still saying that they belong at these smart meetings after they have run at them!

Getting things right?

Continuing the theme of being prompted by things written in the Racing Post, I'll move on to three particularly sensible things which have been written therein recently. Two Sundays ago we had a pair of very good letters. One came from the Globeform maestro Geir Stabell lamenting the ludicrous situation which had seen the pre-race parade of the horses about to run in the Eclipse abandoned in favour of a parade of the jockeys (on foot, no horses in sight) about to ride in it. After that side-show had been completed, there wasn't even time for the horses to fulfill what used to be the obligation of passing the judge's box on the way to post. Great, I suppose, for racegoers who have no interest in horses, but significantly less good for the ones whom racing used formerly to try to attract. I don't study the rule-book often enough or closely enough (maybe I should) to tell you when the rule was scrapped which used to say that horses had to pass the judge's box on the way to post unless there was a particular reason (usually either a very badly behaved horse or extremely wet ground which would mean that the fewer hoofprints damaging the track, the better) for this requirement being temporarily waived. However, I do know that its scrapping was a bad thing. It is now the norm at some courses (Yarmouth being a serial offender) for the horses as a matter of routine to head straight towards the back straight if that is the most direct way to the start, irrespective of how wet or dry the ground is - and this is even (least excusably) the case at Kempton on the AW, where chewing up the track definitely can't be an issue. Anyway, a simple suggestion to RFC would be that it would be easier for racegoers to 'engage with' the sport (good verb, very 21st century) if the horses' warm-up preliminaries are made more, rather than less, visible.

I'll come on to the second good letter from that edition of the Racing Post anon. In the meantime, I will say how pleased I was to read Julian Muscat's column in today's Post. I can never nowadays remember what I've said/written where, but I'm sure that in previous chapters of this blog I must have bemoaned the fact that, by running a horse as a "pace-maker" (and it often isn't clear until after the race that the horse has only been there to fulfil this role) owners and trainers are allowed to disregard the rule which says that every horse has to be ridden to achieve its best possible placing. Rerouted in the St. James's Palace Stakes, Jan Vermeer in the Prince Of Wales's Stakes and Cape Blanco in the Queen Anne Stakes were three horses ridden in a way which seemed designed to ensure that they would achieve their worst possible placing, while Debussy certainly wasn't done any favours by the way he was ridden in the Prince Of Wales's - and yet nobody seemed to find this at all odd. The weird thing is that I keep banging on about this in my amateur way, while the so-called proper journalists, whose job is supposedly to make insightful observations about the sport, act as if nothing is happening. No longer, though, with Julian remarking about horses on whom such tactics are used that, "How this satisfies the rule demanding that every horse should run on its merits is completely beyond comprehension". Does it matter that what many would regard as the most important rule of racing is applied only selectively? I don't know - but I do know an area where it really does matter that the sport is so poorly policed.

For more than two decades, it appears to have been the case that British stewards have become ever less conscientious in exercising their duty to ensure fair play on the playing field - in particular to ensure that jockeys ride with due regard to the safety of the horses and of their fellow riders. There was a time when jockeys were expected to keep their mounts straight and were expected to take all feasible measures to avoid causing interference. In the days before the camera patrol, it was obviously hard for the stewards to play much of a policeman's role in this respect; but once the races had started to be filmed, stewarding policy in general seemed to place a big emphasis on ensuring that dangerous riding would not be tolerated. Nowadays, one sees dangerous riding on a daily basis, and it has become so standard for it to go unpunished that on the rare occasions when the stewards do take action, it is not only the reprimanded culprit who reacts as if he is the injured party. It is worth remembering that when a jockey allows a horse to cross another when he is not clear of that horse, then it is luck of the draw whether the horse behind him is brought down or not; so it is not a case of merely saying that no horse was brought down, therefore no offence was committed.

What has brought me on to this has been the Eddie Ahern case. I say this as someone who both likes Eddie and has a very high regard for him both on and off a horse. But this case is worth pointing out simply because it is a valuable illustration of the damage which can result from riders failing to keep their horses straight and of the policy which has led UK-based jockeys to believe that it is not unacceptable to endanger their fellow riders and their mounts. You might have read that Eddie received a 7-day suspension for causing a pile-up (which he admitted causing) in the Group Three Stockholm Stora Pris at Taby on 31 May. This suspension was subsequently increased to 21 days after the Swedish Racing Authority appealed against the leniency of the penalty, and its appeal was upheld. The upshot is that Eddie has received a 21-day suspension; two top-class horses (Sweden's reigning Horse of the Year Moe Green, and Touch Of Hawk, who is best known to us for having beaten Munsef in the 2009 Stockholm Cup) have suffered what appear to be career-ending injuries; and Frederik Johansson, the best jockey which Scandanavia has ever produced, has suffered a shoulder injury which will at best keep him on the side-lines for several months and at worst will mean that he never rides again. Another victim of the incident is Taby's (now former) chief stipendiary steward who has lost his job as a result of having given out such an over-lenient original penalty - which is understandable because the position of a senior steward can hardly remain tenable after he has made a ruling so patently wrong that the race club feels obliged to appeal (successfully) against it. So, while the British press coverage might have led us to regard Eddie as the victim, he was clearly the transgressor, while Moe Green, Touch Of Hawk and Frederik Johansson (three innocent parties) have all suffered penalties far in excess of his 21-day ban.

And where are my ramblings leading? Well, arguably the most revealing part of the whole episode was Eddie's comment that "Hughesie did a similar thing at Windsor and got seven days". Which brings us to my point: we have all, led by the stewards' repeated failure to give out meaningful reprimands to instances of dangerous riding, developed a mindset which holds that endangering the other competitors doesn't matter. Why should such a thing matter, if the penalty for dangerous riding is either non-existent, or both slight and markedly less than the penalty for excessive use of the whip, an offence which is harmful to neither man nor beast? I didn't see Richard Hughes' interference at Windsor but I heard about it, but I did see his two recent offences at Wolverhampton (one last autumn and one this spring) and all I can say is that it is not in the interests of the horses and jockeys of Britain for riding such as that to be regarded as anything other than totally unacceptable. And until the stewards (and press, for they must bear their share of blame - how often have we heard TV presenters reviewing a race by saying something like, "Granted that the horse has drifted onto the rails and squeezed up a few behind him, but the jockey was doing all that he could to keep him straight", when the jockey, who probably only had one hand on the reins at the time, clearly hadn't been doing everything in his power to keep the horse straight?) act as if they take safety seriously, racing, a very dangerous sport at the best of times, will remain more dangerous than it needs to be. We have all seen fatal falls resultant from horses not being kept straight, and I'm afraid that we shall undoubtedly see more. However, one of the main priorities of stewarding policy should be that such instances be kept to a minimum. Can we say that races are currently policed as if the safety of the competitors is paramount? I don't believe that we can: I'd say that races are currently policed as if the safety of the competitors isn't a major issue at all.

That's enough for one day, so I'll come on to the second good letter in the Racing Post on a later date.

The best policy?

In the previous chapter, I touched upon some words in the Racing Post which had caused me to scratch my head. It is, of course, not uncommon to read something in a newspaper which causes one bemusement, and a snippet in the Racing Post of Monday 4th July certainly had me slightly surprised. When Frankie (pictured up at the Links a couple of weeks ago under William, who rode him to victory at Stratford) won his bumper at Stratford at the end of May, I found the day 140 pounds less profitable than it might have been, courtesy of copping a fine because there was found to be an irregularity in the horse's vaccination records. In fact, my mistake has cost me more than that as the horse has had to start a new course, and therefore my error has also cost me the price of two new shots of Prevac-T, which is probably about another 70 pounds. Basically, the third shot in a course has to come within 215 days of the second (and the course becomes annual thereafter) and, because of an innocent mistake in which I had miscounted my days, it was noticed that his third shot had come 217 days after the second. The horse was still allowed to run, but he had to start a new course of vaccinations afterwards, and my miscalculation, which I made no attempt to conceal or deny, meant that I was given the statutory fine, which apparently is 140 pounds. That was fair enough: I was guilty and, even if one might feel that the minor-ness of the indiscretion doesn't really equate to 140 pounds' worth of either guilt or damage done, if that is the standard punishment, then that is the standard punishment. Case closed.

But should the case be closed? In the Racing Post of Monday 4th July, I read the following: "Debra Hamer was fined 80 pounds (at Market Rasen the previous day) for a passport irregularity, concerning a doctored vaccination entry, for her Michigan Assassin but the nine-year-old was allowed to run in the race won by North Island". A "doctored vaccination entry"? It would seem safe to presume that one would only doctor one's vaccination entries if they do not fall within the specified time limits, otherwise there would be no point in doctoring them. So basically if one's vaccinations are out of time, by however small a margin, and one is completely honest about it, one gets a fine of 140 pounds. But if one's vaccinations are out of time and one doctors the passport to try to mislead BHA officials to cover this up, the fine is 80 pounds. Can that be right? I used to labour under the misapprehension that lying to mislead BHA officials was a serious crime. I now know that it carries a reward of 60 pounds, so I might have to re-think my previous rule of life that honesty is the best policy.

Sandown reflections

My predictions in advance of our trip to Sandown were mostly proved correct. The trip was indeed enjoyable (well, I enjoyed it anyway). Ethics Girl (who features in the first three photographs in this paragraph) and Silken Thoughts (who features in the next two) did indeed both run very well. Both were indeed well ridden. I just got the identity of one of the good riders wrong. I'd expected that Richard Mullen would ride Silken Thoughts (which was a fair assumption, as he was down in the papers to ride her). Sadly he called in sick - and there began the story. I should have just put Hannah down to ride her after that, and she would have ridden her very well, not least because she maintained her sequence of good rides by giving Ethics Girl a lovely ride in the previous race. However, with Silken Thoughts having previously given us such mixed messages as regards what conditions she actually wants, I felt it appropriate on this occasion to opt for a more experienced rider - but could I find one! Unbelievably, Luke Morris (who I think is still in second place in the jockeys' table for 2011 after his excellent winter, and who predictably gave the filly an excellent ride) was the third man I approached, after two jockeys who were there and who could do the weight easily both declined the ride because they said that they'd prefer to knock off earlier. Unbelievable. These were two middle-of-the-road jockeys, not long out of their apprenticeships and, one would have thought, eager to continue the process of establishing themselves as senior riders, as well as to earn some easy money. One had a ride in the previous race so would only have had to put his departure back by 35 minutes, while one had a ride in the race in the race before that so only had to stay an extra 65 minutes. So all they were asked to do was to stay on a little bit longer, ride a straightforward horse who had a good chance (which one could work out simply from a casual glance at the form, on the simple basis that she'd only finished 1.75 lengths off the winner on her most recent start 18 days previously, and was set to race off the same rating) and earn over 100 pounds (and considerably more if the filly won) for sitting on her for ten minutes. Their names have been withheld to protect the guilty, but you can imagine how I was left shaking my head in bemusement. Please just remind me of this incident when the PJA is next negotiating a pay rise for jockeys with the ROA, because I think that this incident tells us that, if you hear poverty being pleaded on jockeys' behalf, then you can take such a claim with a very big pinch of salt. Anyway, good on both fillies/mares who ran so well for us, and good on Hannah and Luke Morris who gave their mounts lovely rides. Ethics Girl ran off the highest mark she's ever been on (84 - compared to her highest winning mark of 73) and only finished 2.5 lengths off the winner in fourth; while Silken Thoughts ran really well to be third, doing everything right in the race and finishing only three lengths behind the winner Aiken, a very progressive (he's now won two from three) Selkirk full-brother to the Group Three winner Felicity and half-brother to the Group Three winner (and good stallion) Sleeping Indian, the 2011 Listed winner Nationalism and the Listed-placed Jalisco. Fingers crossed we won't bump into something of his calibre every time we run her!

Following on from the two jockeys who failed to cover themselves in glory when offered the mount on Silken Thoughts, I ought to remark that I wasn't particularly impressed by the Racing Post's analyst at the meeting either. (In this case I'm not withholding a name to protect the guilty - I just haven't bothered to look to see who wrote it). As mentioned above, Ethics Girl ran arguably as good a race as she's ever run in her whole life. I don't want to blow my own trumpet, but I think that that suggests that (a) I'd sent her to the races in good nick and (b) I'd put her in a suitable race. Had the latter not applied, then surely she would have finished a lot more than two and a half lengths off the winner, when racing off a mark 11lb higher than she's ever won off (in 31 previous starts) and 4lb higher than she's ever been placed off. Apparently the analyst disagrees: he believes that she was running over "a wholly inadequate trip". Fair enough: in advance of the race he might have believed that to be true (as presumably, many punters did, as she went off the 20/1 sixth favourite in a 7-horse field) notwithstanding the fact that she has won over the same distance (at Chepstow) and has won at Sandown over only a furlong farther. However, surely the evidence provided by the result might have suggested to him that he might like to reconsider his previous assumptions, and that maybe I wasn't placing the mare quite as badly as he had previously decided? Even Natagora can see that logic, and she generally finds form study quite a bore.

Beer and skittles

I'm afraid that Gus couldn't work his magic at Newmarket on Friday as Batgirl finished last. We've run her at Newmarket once as a two-year-old, once as a three-year-old and now once as a four-year-old, and with a different jockey each time - and each time she has dropped herself right out as soon as she encounters the downhill sections of the undulations. She's a big, cumbersome mare and clearly doesn't find galloping downhill easy, but I think that, over and above that, she probably votes with her feet when it comes to giving her view on being asked to do so. Still, no harm done: she's bounced back from a poor run previously, and she'll do so again. And we really can't blame Gus - for that, at least. That, of course, didn't stop Bean from justifiably putting the young whipper-snapper in his place later that evening as I was doing evening stables - and that was without knowing of his low act of the previous evening. As Hannah and I had been driving back from Folkestone, I had heard a gnawing from the back seat - and looked around to see Gus getting stuck into the cover of my Aga Khans book, written by Mihir Bose. That was unforgivable, particularly for a dog who lives in a house which has (much cherished) books strewn everywhere. Thank God I heard him so was able to prevent any serious damage being done, but we certainly don't want him to make a habit of it. It's particularly good that this book remains readable because it is a rich source of brahmas. From a racing point of view, we don't hear too much of the non-racing background of the Aga Khan, which is probably just as well as many punters might struggle with the concept of divinity personified. Anyway, this book doesn't really concentrate much on the current Aga Khan (the fourth), instead devoting most attention to his predecessor, the third Aga Khan (his grand-father). Basically, where the Aga Khan differs from the human heads of most other faiths, eg the Pope, is that the other leaders are regarded as God's representative, rather than as God, which is how the khojas (who pay an eighth of their income to their leader) see the Aga Khan. Anyway, the third Aga (he of Mumtaz Mahal, Bahram and Mahmoud fame) seems to have been a truly brahmatic man. Once, when walking in the south of France with one of his English friends, he was accosted by one of his followers, who naturally prostrated himself by the Aga's feet. The Aga duly blessed the man and carried on walking. One would have thought that this incident would not have been too onerous from the Aga's point of view, but as they walked away from the worshipper he turned to his friend and observed, "See - being a God is not all beer and skittles!". On another occasion, at a dinner party in London, he was asked whether he believed in God, to which query he replied, "I have to - it's my business!". This book is actually very heavy going and I struggle in the most part to read more than about two pages in one sitting - but when one stumbles upon nuggets such as these brahmae, all the tedium seems worthwhile. Anyway, I've been carried well off course, and can't end the paragraph outlining Friday's (non-)events (and Thursday's non-destruction of a book) without saluting the day's hero, Tom Queally. I'm not going to prostrate myself at his feet, or pay him an eighth of my income (which is academic because, as we know, 12.5% of f*** all is f***) but I will hail his winning ride in the Falmouth Stakes on Timepiece. Tom was criticised in many quarters, including in the International Report in Winning Post, for going too hard too soon in both the Coronation Cup and the St. James's Palace Stakes (and my Coronation Cup verdict was particularly harsh, bearing in mind that I hadn't, and still haven't, seen the race, having merely worked out that he'd gone clear too early from listening to the call on the radio!). Anyway, praise where it's due - and he stole the Falmouth Stakes, winning a race despite not being on the best horse (which was probably the Christophe Lemaire-ridden runner-up Sahpresa, whose pre-race picture follows Timepiece's). Good on 'im.

Moving on. I rarely go, nor wish to go, to the races when we don't have a runner, but it was a very easy decision to head up to the July Course on Saturday afternoon to watch the July Cup. Thus, for me, Saturday was a day of beer and skittles. It started in appropriately brahmatic fashion when, following hard on the heels of Baldrick's appearance earlier in the week, we saw 'The Stig' as we rode on the top of Warren Hill. Strange but (possibly) true. This was the cause of great excitement, even for someone like me who has never watched Top Gear and who had never heard of The Stig. Anyway, on top of Warren Hill, a white three-wheeler was parked alongside the Moulton Road, and The Stig was posing for photographs. There were, of course, a few unanswered questions (such as why he wasn't at Silverstone, and why did he appear to have gained a bit of weight and lost a bit of height) but we won't worry too much about those. Instead we'll just rejoice in a sighting of The Stig which almost caused the reading on the brahmometer to go off the scale. He even gave us the thumbs-up as he drove off!

That was such a great prelude to a really enjoyable afternoon. I'd have loved to have seen Star Witness win, as it has been a pleasure seeing him regularly on the Heath this past month, and his trainer Danny O'Brien and strapper Paul Koumis (seen leading the horse away after the race, and also seen riding him a couple of weeks previously), not to mention jockey Steven Arnold (pictured looking understandably deflated immediately after unsaddling), are all people in whose victory I would have rejoiced. However, Star Witness' eclipse did not prevent me from taking great pleasure on the victors' behalf: anyone who has read this blog regularly over the past few months will know that Dream Ahead is one of my favourite horses. We see him most days, and he is just a lovely horse, physically and mentally. He has been thriving in appearance over the past few weeks, which speaks volumes for the care he receives from David and Jenny Simcock and from his lad and usual rider Chris Hough (whom one can see below leading his charge back in after the race). So I was delighted for him and for them - and at least equally delighted for Hayley Turner. There's not really much that I can say about her that hasn't already been said everywhere else. She's a cracking rider and very hard worker who has remained completely untouched by her success throughout her successful career - and who will remain equally untouched even if her career continues in the ascendant after that historic Group One victory, which it seems sure to do. So that was all really good. And what was even better was that I gave myself another highlight during the afternoon by being bold enough to introduce myself to a great trainer and his wife, who happened to be there. The great thing about pretending to be a journalist is that one can be impertinent enough to strike up conversations with complete strangers - and, simply because one has informed them that one is the overseas correspondent from Winning Post, they are happy to yack away as if we're lifelong friends. As Geoff Lester might have said, "Power of the press, old boy"! Anyway, Peter Snowden, Darley's Australian trainer who is about to finish second in the premiership in Sydney and who, more remarkably, has trained the winner of every two-year-olds' Group One race in Australia this season, was on course with his wife Lyn; and when I presented myself, they were as friendly and forthcoming as Peter's frequent totally unaffected from-the-heart TV interviews had led one to believe that he would be. I would never respect a trainer merely for being successful, because it would be a grave mistake to assume that, simply because a man was a successful trainer, that he was either a master-horseman or a decent human being. However, I have colossal respect for people whom I believe to be master-horsemen, and colossal respect for people whom I believe to be decent human beings - and as I feel that Peter Snowden falls into both categories, I cherish the memory of the few minutes which I spent enjoying the company of him and his wife. I trust that they had a lovely day - despite the unwelcome intrusion with which they coped so graciously.

If I'd seen some great horses on Saturday (and I surely did) then I saw an even greater one on Sunday. Colleen and Kerry Salmon organise a show near here (usually at the Animal Health Trust) each year. The fruits of their considerable efforts are a large amount of enjoyment for a large amount of people, and a large amount of money raised for charity. I am always delighted if they ask me to play a tiny part, so this year I joined Jonathan and Serena Geake as a judge in the thoroughbreds' ring for three classes (thoroughbreds aged under eight, those aged 8 - 14, and those aged 15 or above). We saw some lovely horses, with all the equine competitors paying great tributes to their keepers. The veterans' class was remarkable for how well all the horses looked (and for answers like that given by the owner of the tremendous-looking winner Columba, pictured above, who, when asked how old her horse was, replied, "He's 15. He retired from racing two years ago"). The 8-14 class was remarkable for the fact that it produced a trifecta of three really lovely horses - with its winner being the great chestnut gelding Purple Moon, Ebor winner,narrow runner-up in the 2007 Melbourne Cup and third place-getter in last year's Ascot Gold Cup. He only retired from racing less than a year ago (he bowed out after finishing third in last year's Goodwood Cup) and was making his show-ring debut on Sunday. It was a pleasure to see him - and a double pleasure to see him looking so well and clearly undamaged by the rigours of a very taxing racing career. It speaks volumes for his magnificence that he won the class because the third-place Seattle Prince (pictured) would have been a really worthy winner: a lovely 13-year-old grey who started life on the Flat with Richard Hannon and who ended his career running over hurdles (ridden by William, funnily enough) with Steve Gollings. I had gone home before the end of the show, but learned yesterday that the perfect post-script was that Purple Moon (pictured) ended the day judged to be Best in Show. Heart-warming stuff.

Looking ahead, we have two things on the horizon. One is the result of this week's At The Races 'Ride of the Week' competition, for which Hannah's winning ride on Kadouchski at Folkestone is one of the nominations (the others being winning rides by Jim Crowley, Seb Sanders and Declan McDonagh). That's a terrific honour being nominated, but if she could win that would be the icing on the cake. If you would like to vote for her, you can do so (free of charge) via this link:-

http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx?hlid=486839

So that's an ongoing excitement, while also to look forward to is our trip to Sandown on Wednesday. Ethics Girl will resume, ridden by Hannah, in the fourth race, while the field for the fifth race will contain Silken Thoughts, who likewise will be well ridden (by Richard Mullen). I'm really looking forward to that outing. The mare and the filly are both very well (and this picture which Emma took of Ethics Girl cantering around Side Hill AW on Saturday shows that she, as spunky as ever, is raring to go) and I hope that we shall get two good runs from them. It's always a pleasure to go to Sandown, a lovely racecourse; and it's a particular pleasure when one goes taking two nice horses, and knowing that one is going to see nice people when one gets there, which will be the case on Wednesday. Let's, as always, hope for the best.

Terrific

That was terrific. Kadouchski won the two-miler at Folkestone today, and in doing so he provided Hannah with her first winner, on her tenth ride and three days after her 17th birthday. That was just lovely, and I hope that these photographs, starting with one of Kadou passing the post with one circuit to go, give a flavour of the victory. I believe and hope that that will prove to have been the first of many winners for Hannah, but I am sure that this victory will always remain special - because as of now it is very special indeed. Hannah must have been feeling a degree of pressure because Kadou was a horse who looked as if he really ought to win, notwithstanding the surprising fact that he didn't start favourite. However, beforehand I emphasised that, whether a mount is a hot favourite or a 100/1 shot, the task is still the same: just get from A to B as efficiently as possible, and if the horse is good enough he will win (and if he isn't, he won't). The rider doesn't have to do anything either better or worse on the favourite or on the outsider - and to move from the general to the specific, she only had to do exactly what she had done on him at Kempton 15 days ago. If she did that, he would probably win; and if she did that and he didn't win, it would simply be that he wasn't good enough, just as at Kempton when he finished second.

I was interviewed before the race today on ATR by Gina Bryce, and after the interview I was rather kicking myself that I must have come across as very confident. And I'm never confident because we've seen all too many occasions when horses appear very likely to win but do not win. But basically Kadouchski is bang in form, as his run of consistently good runs, Flat and National Hunt, has demonstrated; while there wasn't one of his out-of-form opponents who could be seriously fancied to beat him. The Racing Post had Kadou in as the 2/1 favourite and Astrovenus, Seb Sanders' mount, as the 4/1 second favourite. I felt that if Kadou were ridden by a former champion jockey and Astrovenus by an unknown 7-lb claimer, then he would have been put in at even money or shorter, and Astrovenus at 6/1. As it was, Astrovenus went off the 9/4 favourite with Kadou as the 5/2 second favourite. But that's punters for you: the identity of the rider is always deemed to be a major factor, when in fact it is completely irrelevant. What matters is not who the rider is, but how well he or she rides the horse in that particular race - and when the rider does everything right, as Hannah did both today and 15 days ago, then it makes no difference whether people have heard of her or not. But hopefully a few people will have heard of her now, and just to try to give a few minds a jog I will reproduce part of the analysis of the race from the Racing Post's results: "However, one thing is quite clear, 7lb claimer Hannah Nunn looks a rider to follow after she steered Kadouchski to a comfortable victory. She did everything right, not panicking when she met some trouble in running, and was tidy in the finish while using her whip effectively. The horse doesn't race on the Flat very often on turf and wasn't easy to fancy (sic) for a few reasons (only Flat win came on the AW off a mark of 48, and wins over hurdles came with some ease in the ground), but he was full value for his success." On the subject of the ground, by the way, it is worth pointing out that the ground was very close to good at Folkestone today. The track has an undeserved reputation for providing very firm ground in the summer (which probably explains why there were only 36 runners today) but such a reputation can only be in the minds of those who haven't set foot on it this century: it is, and has been for several years, generally very well maintained, and generally provides better ground than most other courses, Flat or National Hunt.

So that was all lovely. Mind you, the real key to the race probably wasn't Kadouchski's merit and genuineness, nor Hannah's riding, but the fact that Gus came along. His presence had done the trick for Frankie (Douchkirk) and for Nigel (Must You Go) at Stratford and Market Rasen respectively, but he had been absent more recently when both Frankie and Batgirl had run well, finishing third, without winning. But he was back on course today, and that probably proved decisive. So you won't be at all surprised to hear that he is booked in for a trip to the July Course tomorrow afternoon when we take Batgirl up there. Tough race, so we best give ourselves every help we can!