My mistake - and some misconceptions

Everything ran smoothly with our trip down to Fontwell yesterday, which was really rather pleasant. It was a cold night leading into a cold morning, and I was rather concerned at one point of the drive through Sussex to see the thermometer in the box still showing the outside temperature as minus one. However, on our arrival at Fontwell we found it dry and not particularly cold, so that was lovely - particularly for Gus and I on our walk around the track, which was clearly going to present very testing conditions for the horses. Dr Darcey (pictured with William both before and after the race) ran OK and jumped very well, even if getting very tired in the final quarter of a mile, which was understandable on a day of gruelling conditions. He's only young still, and he'll get more seasoned as he goes along. His heart is definitely in the right place, and with his enthusiasm and jumping ability he'll surely do alright. In fact, the only debacle of the day concerned a brainstorm of mine, and even with that no harm was done. I knew perfectly well the time of the race (12.40) but for some reason at some point in the morning my brain got hold of the idea that it was 1.00. I'd have been alright at any other track, but at Fontwell, with the pre-parade ring being just a circle outside the saddling boxes, we had established that the parade ring would be the pre-parade ring for the first race. So I wandered into the stable yard at 12.15, aiming to give Terri a hand to put the finishing touches to him before she pulled him out - and was most impressed to see that she had been diligent enough already to have pulled out, three quarters of an hour before the race (as I believed). I wandered over to the parade ring, which contained Dr Darcey and most of the other runners. The others were all wearing sheets, which covered the saddles which they were wearing, so I just assumed that they were all as yet unsaddled. John Flint was saddling his horse and I just assumed that he was saddling earlier than everyone else, little realising that everyone else had already finished saddling. It did strike me that there was a surprisingly large number of people in the parade ring, but I let that one go through to the keeper. I wandered around aimlessly for a few minutes, and then thought that we would have reached a time by which William would probably have weighed out. I was approaching the weighing room at 12.28 (ie 12 minutes before the race, but in my mind 32 minutes before the race) when I was rather surprised to be telephoned by the clerk of the scales (who did at least know that I had arrived, as I'd been chatting to him in the weighing room about two and a half hours previously) asking me whether I was coming to collect my saddle. I assured him that I was on my way, wondering what all the fuss was about - and then the penny dropped only when I entered the weighing room and saw a puzzled-looking William, carrying the only saddle in the room and already wearing his crash helmet and looking ready to walk out to the parade ring. Oh, sh*t! Well, all was well that ended well: I saddled Dr Darcey quicker than I've ever saddled anything, and he had re-entered the parade ring before the jockeys got there, so no harm was done. And I was able to console myself that, even if I had delayed the start, I would, presumably, have been safe from a fine for having the horse late into the parade ring, because he had, of course, already spent half an hour in the parade ring, only without a saddle.

I can't, of course, mention William without remarking on his bad news, which you will probably have read in today's Racing Post. I am referring, of course, to the fact that he is no longer Time For Rupert's jockey, which is a shame as Rupert is easily the best horse he has been riding. Time For Rupert didn't run well last time, but he had no business taking on Kauto Star and Long Run at level weights, so I don't think that the run was as below-par as being beaten 25 lengths would suggest. However, his connections must have been disappointed - and it is understandable that if one has a good horse who one feels is not doing well, one might be tempted to change either the trainer or the jockey - and any trainer with any instinct for self-preservation will try to ensure that the option taken is not the former. This is neither the first time nor the last for something like this, and life goes on. Even though one couldn't have watched any of Rupert's races and have felt that William was doing anything wrong, the temptation to try something different is understandable. In cases such as these, it generally becomes plain that, even with a different jockey, the horse is still the same horse, and that the change has not had the effect of waving a magic wand. But basically no harm is done - and, of course, the fact that a jockey has ridden a horse in the past, or even ridden him in in all his previous races as is the case here, implies no obligation on anyone's part to ensure that he rides him in all his future races. Neither the connections nor the jockey are obligated in this respect: just as a jockey can and will decline a mount if his interests dictate that he go elsewhere, so are the connections at liberty to look elsewhere if they feel that it is the right thing for them to do. Anyway, William is a top-class jockey who will bounce back - not least because he now appears to be getting rides for JP McManus on occasions when AP McCoy cannot do the weight or has to go elsewhere - and Rupert will survive without him, even if he won't be improved by William's absence (notwithstanding the fact that he might well win his next race, simply because it will be the weakest race he has contested for ages). But I can't help feeling that fate now owes William a good turn or two.

We've had a similar disappointment recently in this neck of the woods, with Ted Spread leaving Mark Tompkins' Rayes Lane stable. Ted Spread is a good horse, even if not as good as some of the races which he has contested (he ran in both the Derby and the St Leger last year after having been particularly well placed to land a substandard Chester Vase by a head) would imply. He has run on the Flat five times this year, running consistently well to record Postmarks of 107, 100, 99, 100 and 99. He finished fourth to Cirrus Des Aigles in a Group Two race in Deauville and fourth, beaten only a length, to Watar in a Group Two race at Longchamp, and he was beaten only a nose in a Listed race at Pontefract, a race which I thought that he would have been awarded by the stewards had Kieren Fallon lodged an objection. Anyway, he made his hurdles debut about three weeks ago, finishing fourth of 11 in a good novices' hurdle at Ascot. It was a most encouraging jumping bow, particularly as he jumped impeccably all the way round, and it was clear that he was on his way to a fruitful career over jumps. However, it has also transpired that it meant that he was on his way to Paul Nicholls' stable. That's a shame. It is clear to me that he was going to do well over jumps where he was - but, again, if his owners felt that they had a potential top-liner on their hands who would only achieve his potential if trained by Paul Nicholls, then nobody could blame them for moving the horse. The only sad thing is that, to my mind, the decision was based on a misconception: he didn't need to move to develop into a high-class hurdler because while Paul Nicholls, like Mark, is a very good trainer, he isn't a magician - all he can do is what Mark (who sent out Akula to win a good handicap hurdle at Wetherby on Saturday and who is pictured here beside the Moulton Road in the summer in one of his stable's trademark red jackets) would have done, ie to get the horse to do be as good as he can be. Ted Spread's jumping was superb at Ascot, as good as it would have been had he done his schooling on any other schooling ground - and similarly he'll race as well as he can, whether trained by Paul Nicholls, by Mark, or indeed by any one of a dozen dozen good trainers. Paul Nicholls can't make him any better than he is, and I just hope that it isn't forgotten if this horse goes on to do very well (which he is likely to do) that he would have done that whether or not he'd moved. Horses move stables all the time. I've had horses arrive here from other stables and I've had horses leave here to go to other stables; and I haven't lost any sleep over it in either instance. It is, though, a shame to see a horse move house simply because of a misconception: it is, after all, all too easy to forget each spring that, when Paul Nicholls has half a dozen horses win at the Cheltenham Festival, he has another 250 or so at home who don't.