If you see an ambulance, chase it

Emma went to Tim Forster's old yard in Letcombe Bassett yesterday because she is writing a feature for Horse & Hound on the offspring of Plaid Maid, principally Carruthers and Coneygree.  That's great as those two horses are the most popular jumpers in this house (inmates of this yard excepted, of course) - and not even primarily because they're generally by Britain's most brahmatic jockey, Mattie Batchelor (pictured).  But, leaving aside the wonderful memories of Lord Oaksey which his horses keep bringing up, I've been chuckling over a Tim Forster brahma.  I think that it was Hywel Davies (when about to win on Last Suspect) who was sent out at Aintree with the instructions, "Keep remounting".  It could have been Charlie Fenwicke before his ride on Ben Nevis, but I think that the story with him was just that Captain Forster just said afterwards that he'd assumed that he would come back in the ambulance.  Anyway, I've been thinking that that observation has been misconstrued into the advice, "If you see an ambulance, chase it."  Today, of course, has had as its major 'news' the surely-incorrect story that John McCririck is to sue Channel Four for sacking him for being old.  Where to start?

If I haven't missed the point, Channel Four contracts its racing coverage out.  Highflyer Productions lost the contract to whichever company used to do the BBC's work.  Highflyer obviously couldn't keep on its racing presenters as it no longer presents racing.  Some of those who lost their jobs were hired by the new firm; some, including McCririck, weren't.  So how was he sacked by Channel Four?  How was he even employed by Channel Four in the first place?  Still, there might be something in it, bearing in mind that the Jeremy Vine show (yes, that's the same show which discussed Frankie Dettori's misdemeanour by asking, "Why would a jockey take a performance-enhancing drug?") apparently told us today that, "We'll be talking to John McCririck later.  He was sacked by Channel 4 and replaced by Clare Balding."  Must be right, then.

So that was today's 'news'.  A silly non-story reported in a manner even sillier than it deserved.  But what will tomorrow's news be?  I'll be interested to read the reports of the Adam Kirby non-trier hearing.  Adam was charged with not riding Piper's Piping on his merits at Kempton recently.  I gather that he has been suspended for a week.  What does one make of that?  He can't be innocent of the charge - or else why has he been given a week's suspension?  But by the same token, he can't be guilty either - or else why has he been given a week's suspension?  Like McCririckgate, this makes no sense whatsoever, so I hope that the coverage we read tomorrow will be less confusing than the coverage of McCririckgate today.

So that's our hope for tomorrow - along with a hope that the fog will have lifted by then, and a reflection that, if Adam has actually been found guilty of not riding the horse on his merits, then Jimmy Quinn's six-months' disqualification (and disqualification is much more draconian than suspension) for "association", when there was no suggestion that he'd ever stopped a horse, can be viewed as an even greater miscarraige of justice than it appeared at the time.