The scales of justice

I got through my Sunday Forum shift very well on Sunday, much to my relief.  I'm on the road back to health, and I only struggled with my voice at the point when I couldn't stop laughing as Matt was putting forward so many theories and counter-theories that he seemed to be confusing himself, never mind the rest of us.  Anyway, it was a very enjoyable show (for the panellists, if not the viewers, as is usually the case with these 'talking heads' productions).  Probably the only topic with which I struggled was the final one we discussed, the BHA's recent review of its disciplinary procedures.  I just didn't really know what to say.  Did you read about that in the Racing Post?  If so, you're probably as confused as I am.

I haven't read the review so am not really in a position to comment.  And maybe I should just assume that the review makes sense, and that it is just the Post's summary which is so confusing.  What most baffled me was that we were told that the BHA had apologised to Kate Walton and Jim Boyle for messing them about in the seemingly never-ending investigations in which they were embroiled.  How does that work?  How was Jim Boyle cleared?  When did that happen?  I am sure that I remember him serving a two-month suspension.  How can you both exonerate someone and suspend them?  Or was he retrospectively exonerated after having served his suspension?  If that's the case, the exoneration (and subsequent apology) would have been fairly meagre consolation.

And, if Kate Walton, why not Richie McGrath?  And Brendan Powell?  All the time, money and stress which Brendan went through when charged and then found not guilty of not training some of the horses which he trains was brought to mind during Cheltenham when the Channel Four team nearly exploded with excitement after the Triumph Hurdle, joining in a happy chorus of, "Oh, isn't this wonderful?  Aidan doesn't actually train this horse!".  And then we cut to an interview with Aidan, who confirmed that, prior to that day, he hadn't seen the horse since last autumn, and that Joseph trains him, but just doesn't have a license.  After all that jollity, an apology might seem to be the very least that Brendan could expect.

I suppose that probably just ought to read the review, not least because I'll be interested to see what it has to say about the Mahmood al Zarooni case, which isn't mentioned in the Post's summary.  While the BHA generally errs of the side of ponderousness in handling these things, never letting them last merely months when years is an option, this one went to the other extreme.  Probably the biggest doping case in British racing history, it was wrapped up in a few days.  (I am aware that the BHA had a confession, which usually is not the case, but I've watched enough Inspector Morse episodes to know that a confession does not generally speed things up significantly).  Anyway, it will be interesting to read the review, and find out whether the standard for speed which that enquiry set is to be regarded as the benchmark, or whether in retrospect such briskness is seen as maybe just a touch perfunctory.

Sick note

No runners this week and no runners next, and that's not a bad thing as we're not very well.  Trips to the races do not hold much appeal at present; it's hard enough to get the ones in full training exercised while giving the ones in light work a few days off.  I don't like to sound too pathetic, but I think that I've been the illest of all of us.  But I'm certainly not the only ill one.  There are four full-time people here - Hannah, Jana, Abbie and myself - and a couple of days ago Hannah and Abbie were both off sick, Jana was here and functioning normally, and I was here but not up to doing much.  I've not ridden out the last three days, and I think that it would previously have been 10 years since I'd not ridden because of being unwell, bar sitting February 2014 out after my hernia operation.

I'm not as ill as I was towards the end of winter in 2006 when I was really low for a few weeks and lost a stone, but I've been low enough.  I hope that I'm on the way back to normality now, but it's been quite depressing because it's taken so long.  This is the third week now.  Three Wednesdays ago it was a cold, very wet morning.  I was getting through it alright, but rode Roy last lot, and have rarely gone from healthy to unwell so quickly.  He's not an easy ride and is very headstrong, and can be very hard work.  I found myself stuck behind some of Roger Varian's horses coming home down the Bury Road and Roy was really pulling me around - and, having felt fine at the far end of the road, I was not only soaked but also exhausted by the time I got back to the stable.

Within 24 hours I was feeling terrible with a chest infection.  That seemed to run what you'd regard as its usual course, and by the start of this week I was feeling semi-fine, and I thought that the end was in sight.  But midweek I took a turn for the worse, and have been very low for the past three days.  Still, while I haven't been eating, I've been drinking plenty of Lucozade and sleeping a lot, so I seem to be getting stronger again, I hope that I'll be back in the saddle on Monday or Tuesday.  In the interim, I should be OK to go over to Milton Keynes tomorrow morning for a Sunday Forum show on ATR.  I'm getting better.  I should now be able to get through the show without coughing.  And it's not physically demanding at all.  I'll just need the brain, and the voice, to function adequately.

At least the weather was kind to us yesterday.  That helped.

Joy

I'd echo the sentiments of David Winter and Neil Kearns after the last chapter: Victoria Pendleton's achievements in the past year, culminating in an ice-cool and polished round in the Foxhunters, have been both heart-warming and inspirational.  In fact, I'd nearly say that they were the happiest aspect of the week - except that from my point of view the happiest event of the week was the win of Indira in the 7.15 at Wolverhampton on Saturday night.  It had been a bleak and barren winter for us with no victory since Blue Sea Of Ibrox's win at Pontefract early in October, so it was bloody terrific to get off the mark for the year.

Indira had run some very sound races during the winter - she'd twice finished a very good second to a well-handicapped horse, and I think that she'd have won at Chelmsford in a storm and the dark on the first Sunday in January had she enjoyed the run of the race - but that's not the same as passing the post in front.  Particularly when none of her stablemates was passing the post in front either.  So it was a truly joyous occasion when she scored on Saturday - particularly as Lucinda McClure, who rides her nearly every day and who dotes on her, was able to come to the races and lead her up.

I thought it was a fairly solid win on Saturday, but then I'm biased and I ought to cede to the Racing Post's observer, who thought that the performance didn't amount to much, and that she'd struggle in future if going up more than 3lb.  Ah well, she's gone up 4lb.  But, even so, I hope that she might continue to run well through the spring, as she's seemingly in very good shape and very good heart at present.  She can go to Catterick, where she generally runs well, on 6th April - and I very much hope that Josephine Gordon can go there too.  Josephine gave her a ride that a leading senior jockey would have been proud of, and I'd be very keen to keep the partnership intact.  Her 5lb claim is a gift - to the extent that replacing her with a senior jockey, however good that senior jockey, would be the same as incurring an extra 5lb rise in the ratings.

What made the win on Satuday extra special was that there was a good representation on behalf of the Severn Crossing Partnership, whose members race her with the best possible nature, accepting setbacks  supportively and with good grace, and appreciating the rare good moments as they should be treasured, ie as a bonus, rather than a right.  It was lovely to have so many people sharing the joy - which made me think of a couple of interviews I had seen on TV with Gordon Elliott during the Cheltenham Festival.

The first winner which Gordon (who did not put up overweight on the only ride he had for this stable - strange but true) had at Cheltenham this year was a hurdler for J P McManus.  He was interviewed on TV afterwards and was presented with an observation which, even by the standards of observtions which we are accustomed to hearing on TV, was remarkably stupid: "Every winner at Cheltenham is special, but it must be particularly special when the winner is for J P."  I can't remember how Gordon coped with this piece of idiocy - in fact, as it wasn't actually a question, he might easily have ignored it - but it obviously stuck in his mind.

On the final day when he trained Don Cossack to win the Gold Cup for Michael O'Leary, he was again interviewed.  I can't remember how the interrogation worked its way round to this, but I think that Gordon, seemingly having the words from the earlier interview buzzing around in his head, probably steered it in this direction.  Anyway, he went out of his way to say that every winner is very special, irrespective of who owns the winner, and it is just as heart-warming to help to provide the joy of a winner at Perth or Down Royal for a small syndicate as it is to turn out a big winner for a major owner.  That to anyone involved with the racing of horses is just common sense, even if not to whomever it was who conducted that first interview.  The joy of a winner, and sharing it with good people, is very, very special indeed, wherever it happens - and particularly when you've been waiting a while!

Pendleton trumped by Ricci; Henderson trumped by the Sheikh

I know that we're only halfway through Cheltenham, but I think that we can wrap up the awards now.  Best Cheltenham Preview?  Easy: Luke Harvey's interview/feature on ATR with Victoria Pendleton.  If you haven't seen it, you should do.  I'd imagine that it's on the ATR website, so it'll be easy enough to find.  Worst Cheltenham Preview? Easy again: the Betbright evening, when apparently Rich Ricci announced that the only two options for Vautour were the Gold Cup or not running at the Festival.   Even at the time that was a silly thing to say: the Ryanair clearly presented him with a better chance, and he was entered in the race - and, as the pre-Derby New Approach debacle a few years ago reminded us, if a horse holds an engagement in a race and is still alive, he has to be regarded as a possible runner.

This potential fallacy of that declaration became even more obvious last Friday when we had the confirmation stage for the Ryanair, at which Vautour's connections paid up to keep him in the race.  Lo and behold, all hell broke loose yesterday morning when Ricci announced that common sense had prevailed and that the Ryanair, rather than the Gold Cup, would be the race for Vautour.  He'd sensibly left the decision until fairly late in the day and I can't see that there was any plan to defraud punters.  The only complicating factor is that he is now a bookie as well as an owner, which obviously puts a potentially sinister slant on any move to misdirect punters; while the only mystery is why he had ever been silly enough to give out the misinformation in the first place.  Guilty of stupidity, surely (and we all have that on our charge-sheets all too often) - but guilty of anything more sinister?  I can't see it.

All things considered, Rich Ricci ends this saga in front as he has done the impossible: his faux pas has taken the spotlight off Victoria Pendleton.  Which has to be a good thing for everyone, particularly for her.  And his blunder certainly won't be the only stupid thing said in connection with the Festival.  I took my hat off to Willie Mullins for not rising to the bait after the Arkle when it was put to him on C4 that Douvan was "the horse of a lifetime".  If I were the trainer of Douvan, that would be a sensible thing to say to me.  But I don't train Douvan.  As things stand, bearing in mind one can only really have one horse of a lifetime if the phrase is going to mean anything at all, Douvan has a long, long way to go before he can be considered the horse of the lifetime of the man who trained not only Hurricane Fly (winner of 22 Grade One races) but also Quevega (whose record of winning at the Festival six years running is likely to stand forever).

Aside from that, we should doff our hats to the Tweeter of the Week, who has to be Nicky Henderson.  As reported in today's Racing Post, he seemingly interrupted his duties after legging up Nico De Boinville and Noel Fehily before the Supreme Novices' Hurdle to tweet, "It's nearly time ... #CheltenhamRoar".  That's impressive: I'm a fairly dedicated Tweeter, but I don't think that even I could match that diligence, particularly not for the production of something so banal.  In fact, he must be in the running for Tweeter of the Century for this brahma, although that award is already wrapped up: if my memory serves me correctly, Sheikh Mohammed put out a series of tweets, in both English and Arabic, to highlight some UAE government works programme while waiting for the trophy presentation after Dawn Approach's 2,000 Guineas.  Not even Donald Trump could show such devotion to the affairs of state.

Logic somewhere in the fog

Two days (or sleeps, if one is an infant) to go.  And, unbelievably, declarations for only two races at Cheltenham have been taken, ie the Champion Hurdle and the mares' hurdle.  Having 48-hour declarations is so much better than the 24-hour system and, while I am aware that jumps racing has not yet moved over to the 48-hour system, aren't all Grade One races meant to have 48-hour declarations?  And, more to the point, shouldn't all Grade One races have 48-hour declarations?  So where are the declarations for the Arkle and the Supreme?  Aren't we trying to encourage advance interest in these races?  And it's not even as if there could be any opposition to the 48-hour system when one is racing at this level: while planning for lower-tier races might be more ad hoc, if you're training a horse for a Grade One race, your plans have been made weeks in advance.  It's not a last-minute decision just to give it a go.

Declarations for the big race of the Festival, of course, won't be taken until either Wednesday or Thursday, when the Foxhunters field is assembled.  I'm so pleased that Victoria Pendleton will be riding in it.  She's a breath of fresh air, inspirational both for the passion of her Corinthian spirit and for her professionalism.  (And I know that that sentence might seem self-contradictory, but it isn't).  I couldn't understand this 'She shouldn't be riding because she isn't very experienced and she might have a fall' agonising.  That's racing: plenty of riders will have falls during the Festival, and that's nobody's business but their own.  They're adults, not children.

And look at it another way: if today you were offered even money Victoria Pendleton to have a fall at Cheltenham or even money Ruby Walsh to have a fall at Cheltenham, which one would you take?  I'd definitely take the Ruby Walsh bet. Even money Victoria Pendleton to have a fall is probably about right, maybe slightly under the odds; but Ruby has to be about 1/4 to have at least one fall.  He'll probably have 20 rides, and surely nobody could think that the likelihood is that they'll all get round.  But nobody is his right mind would say that Ruby shouldn't be allowed to take all those rides because he's likely to have a fall.  Just nonsense.

To move, though, to the real action, ie that which takes place in the stewards' rooms.  We've had two $1.05 winners in the past few days (ie that Luke Morris would have his Lingfield ban overturned, and that Jim Best would be found guilty).  The only two points left hanging are (1) how on earth could Luke have been given the ban in the first place, and (2) Best's punishment.  The panellists on the Sunday Forum were agonising over the likely length of his inevitable disqualification (or, rather, were agonising around the likely length of his disqualification, their coyness meaning that they wouldn't give an opinion) but, really, it's academic: when his disqualification ends, it's hard to see him convincing the licensing panel that he would be a fit and proper person to hold a trainer's license, so it will effectively be a lifetime ban from training, however long or short the term of his disqualification.

To move on to a different aspect of law-enforcement, namely the whip rules.  While the situation persists that a jockey can win a race by breaking the rules without risk of demotion, it will remain likely that there will be narrow winners in big races who owe their victory to their jockeys breaking the rules - which is very hard to swallow if the jockey on the runner-up keeps within the rules.  We're likely to get a similar situation in one of the big races at Cheltenham, which, if it happens, will leave a sour taste in the mouth.  And, even if it doesn't, victory for Cue Card in the Gold Cup would see a million-pound bonus being 'earned' by breaking the rules (if one believes, as I do, that he would not have won the King George had Paddy Brennan not thrown caution to the wind in the closing stages).

Anyway, common sense says that these unsatisfactory instances should not be allowed to happen (for the sake of the blameless connections of the unfortunate runners-up, even if for no other reason).  And we might have moved a step forward in that respect yesterday.  In race four at the Sunshine Coast, Stonecast and Rosella dead-heated, ridden by Sarah Eilbeck and Taylor Williams respectively.  As Taylor Williams had breached the guidelines and Sarah Eilbeck hadn't, the latter and Stonecast's trainer Gary Duncan protested.  The stewards decided that, while Eilbeck had ridden within the rules, Williams had not; and that the additional strikes from the latter had had a material effect on the result.

The consequence was that Rosella was demoted to second, Stonecast being given as the outright winner.  Obviously, the narrower the margin, the easier it is to decide that the result has been affected.  And the narrowest margin of all is a dead-heat.  This, then, was a relatively easy case in which to take action.  Still, though, I think that the action taken was clearly correct.  That's the first time that a breach of the whip rules has seen an alteration to the result in Australia, and it could possibly the first time that it's happened anywhere in the world.  You'd like, simply from the point of view of fairness and natural justice, to think that it won't be the last.  Food for thought.

We had two trips to Chelmsford in the week.  Both were pleasant.  On Thursday, Blue Sea Of Ibrox (penultimate photograph, pre-race with Dan Muscutt) ran a good last (if one is allowed to say such a thing) by finishing fifth of the five in-form horses in her race, beaten two lengths despite being short of room in the closing stages.  It was an unproductive trip, but I don't regret having run her.  It has kept her ticking over before she goes back on the turf when the season starts, and it has confirmed that she remains in very good heart.  Similarly sixth of 10 for Cherry Street (final photograph, pre-race with Kevin Stott) there the following day was unproductive, but not a disaster.  He'll be OK.  We'll have one entry this week: Indira (the tips of whose ears are visible in the fourth photograph, taken this morning) at Wolverhampton on Saturday.

The view from the Sodermalm Omnibus

Good observation from Brian Jones, thank you, after the last chapter, drawing my attention to Lucinda Russell having talked her way out of a fine for having a horse arrive late in the parade ring.  I'm sure that I could (should) have done the same, the only problem being that, as it never occurred to me that the stewards could possibly be so mean-spirited, not to mention unreasonable, as to fine me, I didn't bother to put up much of a defence, beyond telling them why I had been late (ie that I'd been standing in the weighing room talking firstly to Alan King and then to Hugo Bevan, waiting for the jockey to weigh out, when by rights I ought to have been saddling the horse).  No matter: what's done is done, we can't turn the clock back, and life goes on.

Still, if I was taken aback to be punished on that occasion, poor Luke Morris must have been flabbergasted at Lingfield on Saturday.  I see that his appeal is being heard tomorrow, and I'd rate him about a $1.05 chance to succeed, but really it shouldn't have come to that.  It was ludicrous that he was given a five-day suspension in the first place, and he shouldn't be having to go to the expense of travelling to London (and, I note, hiring a lawyer, although I suspect that the PJA might pay for that) to have something overturned which should never have existed in the first place.

It's funny how things happen.  I mentioned at the start of last week that we had had three horses come back from their work uncomfortable and then show abnormal blood profiles afterwards.  We wouldn't have any more than 10 horses cantering at present, so that's a lot, hence my not having any runners for a week.  Basically, the problem was 'tying up', which means getting cramp in the muscles in the hind quarters after exercise.  This causes muscle damage, hence the subsequent elevated muscle enzyme levels in the blood.  Anyway, that was only the start of the saga which brings us round to Luke's ban.

Last weekend Banquo's ghost showed up at the feast: our former colleague and ongoing friend D. Williamson (7), better known as Squeak.  Squeak is still jockeying in Sweden.  He was over in England for four days with his (Swedish) wife Maria and their daughter Bella, visiting his son Conor who lives with his maternal grandparents.  Anyway, the four of them called in on Saturday, which was lovely.  You can see them in the first paragraph when we had our lunch in the Golden Lion.  (It was all smiles at that stage, but things got a bit grim later on as he and I played chess, and it pains me to admit that he won 3-0).

Anyway, Maria has a trainer's license for the one horse whom they have.  Squeak told me that the last time the filly had run, he'd pulled her up because she wasn't travelling well and he was concerned that there was something amiss.  She walked off the track sound, but she tied up afterwards, and her subsequent blood profile, ie elevated muscle enzyme levels, confirmed this.  Anyway, he said that the stewards at Taby had given him a rocket, telling him that it was irresponsible to pull up: he was right to ease her if he was concerned, but he should have let her canter home unpressured.  They said pulling horses up unnecessarily in Flat races (ie unless the horse has broken down, in which case you have to pull up) gives the sport a bad name because it gives the general public a false impression that many more horses are being badly injured than is the case.  That clearly makes sense.  And it's just a charter for stopping horses: 'I wasn't quite sure that he was moving right, so I pulled him up ...'.

Anyway, little did we know that about the time that this conversation was taking place, Luke Morris was riding a 3/1 shot, Apache Glory, for Mark Loughnane in the first race at Lingfield.  Half a mile from home in this 12-furlong race, Apache Glory started to struggle.  Luke was concerned that Apache Glory wasn't moving right, so he chose to err on the side of caution and eased him, letting him come home unpressured in his own time, finishing a distant last.  The horse apparently walked sound off the track, but when he got back to the stable yard and began to cool down, he tied up.  He would have been very stiff behind at that point; and then, as they do, he came sound again later on when the cramp wore off.

Anyway, when the stewards heard that the horse was found to be lame once he had returned to the stables, they gave Luke a five-day suspension for not having pulled him up.  (Overlooking, of course, that the horse would have tied up just the same had he done that).  Anyway, where does this leave us?  It's actually rare to see horses pulled up (ie not complete the course) in a Flat race, other than when they break a leg and go hopping lame midrace, often fatally: they are generally eased down and come home in their own time, finishing a long way behind the others.  That was what happened here, and is what happens, often several times, just about every day.

When the jockey finds the horse struggling more than he might be expected to do so, and finds that the horse is not stretching out properly, is he now supposed to pull him up?  (Bear in mind, of course, that the jockey has only seconds to make this judgement, and actually has no idea whether the horse will be found to be lame afterwards, or just a bit sore somewhere).  Basically, the message is that he has to do so: he has to treat the horse, who might or might not be lame, as if he has gone properly lame - and that presumably will mean not only pulling up to a walk, but dismounting too, because it is an offence to continue to ride a lame horse, and the jockey has to work on the assumption that the horse might be lame, just in case.

This is just so very, very stupid.  There will be horses pulled up in the majority of races.  As the stewards at Taby Galop pointed out to Squeak, this will make racing look so very, very bad to man on the both the Clapham and the Sodermalm Omnibus.  More (ie less) seriously, it will mean that there are trainers being fined for having their horses late into the parade ring all the time, as, rather than saddling when we should, we stand around waiting for the jockeys to reappear from leading their horses up the home straight after the previous race.  It's just so very stupid.  Hopefully a wrong will be righted tomorrow - but if it isn't, it will the whole of racing which will suffer, rather than merely Luke Morris.

I hope that tomorrow might also see us having a winner as Blue Sea Of Ibrox runs at Chelmsford.  She'll have a chance.  She only has four opponents, but they are four relatively formidable ones, and she could easily run very well and finish last.  But she'll do her best, so we'll hope for the best.  And Cherry Street then runs at the same venue roughly 24 hours later.  He, too, will do his best; and he, too, will have a chance. Otherwise, trying to keep warm and dry will be the aim.  The weather really hasn't been nice at all over the past week or so, and has been (very) wet and/or cold just about all the time.  Still, as this chapter's illustrations mostly confirm, during that time I have managed to take a few photographs which make things look more pleasant than they have been.

Get thee hence

First of March today which is always quite a nice milestone to reach as one can say that it's the first day of  spring.  I regard December, January and February as winter, with March, April and May being spring.  (Although I am aware that the other way of looking at it sees the three months of spring starting on the vernal equinox, and the three months of summer starting on the longest day).  Whatever, we're now in March, which didn't actually start particularly pleasantly as it rained this morning, which was an unwelcome change after the more pleasant conditions of the past few days, which have begun with frost but then progressed to providing quite a few hours of really glorious sunshine.  As you can see in this chapter.

For once, though, the weather has not been my principal pre-occupation.  Instead, the question has been, 'To run or not to run'.  A few days ago I would have told you that we'd have two runners this week: Indira at Lingfield on Tuesday (ie today) and Cottesloe at Wolverhampton on Wednesday.  However, that plan began to unravel on Sunday.  I had a busy and early start to Sunday: I needed to be finished outside by 9 o'clock as I needed to get on the road over to Milton Keynes for a 'Sunday Form' booking on ATR, and I needed to have ridden three horses, and to have made and distributed all the feeds too.

But the consequent early start actually worked out for the best because it meant that I had ridden Indira well in advance of declaration time for Tuesday's racing.  Which was just as well because, although I was delighted with the quality of Indira's work and rode home thinking that she really would be very hard to beat two days later, when I got home she didn't seem comfortable at all, and that pushed me towards the decision not to run her.  Anyway, I elected not to declare her, which is just as well as I had a blood test taken from her yesterday and her muscle enzyme levels are too high, so she would not have wanted to be running today.  It's only a temporary problem and she'll be right shortly, but not today.

Anyway, come Monday (ie yesterday) morning I declared Cottesloe for Wolverhampton tomorrow.  That's all good, even if one of his stablemates (Indira) had shown signs of a problem the previous day.  Then, blow me, we only had two more horses who looked uncomfortable after their work this morning.  I've had blood tests taken on them both this evening, and I'm expecting to find that they too have elevated muscle enzyme levels.  There is no sign of anything amiss with Cottesloe, but even so it is disconcerting.

You may remember about three years ago Alan King had a period of several weeks in the autumn when pretty much all of his runners ran disappointingly.  Alan reported in retrospect that he was baffled by his run of poor form, but that eventually he found out what the problem was: his horses had all been displaying raised muscle enzyme levels.  Once he had identified the problem he was able to address it, and he soon bounced back to the consistently high level of success which he generally achieves.  Anyway, even though Cottesloe has given me no reason to be concerned on his behalf, if the blood tests for these two more horses today come back unsatisfactory tomorrow morning, common sense says that the prudent course of action would be not to have any runners in the next few days.

So we'll see - but I'm not expecting to be going to the races tomorrow.  It's a common theme that non-runners create dissatisfaction and provide fuel for the conspiracy theorists - but, although, I'm keen to run him tomorrow, it might clearly be the correct decision not to do so.  If there are signs that he may well underperform, I would be doing nobody a favour by running him.  Not the horse, and not any punters.  So we'll see - but what reason I will give for the self-certificate remains to be seen.

It would, of course, have to be a self-certificate, because I can't really ask a vet to say that he's found something wrong with him if he is showing no signs of ill health.  I think that the good old 'self-certificate: other' might be called into play.  But I promise you: this is no plan to defraud the betting public.  It is a plan to minimise the chance of doing a disservice to a lovely horse, and to minimise the chance of making the betting public do their dough on a horse who lets them down by running below form.

So that gives us a little insight into the withdrawal process - which brings us nicely round to the declaration process. One thing that really annoys me is the 're-offering' of races which don't get their quota of declarations.  This is so wrong - and the fact that it's clearly against the spirit of the sport (ie that if declaration time is 10 o'clock, it's 10 o'clock) is the least of my worries.  My main gripe is that if one enters a horse in a race, it's usually because one wants to run the horse in it.  When, four days later, one doesn't declare, it is usually for one of two reasons: either one isn't happy with the horse, or the ground has gone against him.

In either case, one is disappointed to have had to abort the plan to run.  This disappointment is doubled or trebled if one sees the declarations and finds out that the race has attracted a weak field.  So when it has attracted a weak field, it is very galling to have Weatherbys contact you - like Mrs Doyle saying, "Ah gowan,, gowan, gowan, gowan, gowan" -  to ask you to reconsider your decision not to declare.  It is both irritating and bloody irresponsible.  You've regretfully taken the decision not to declare on horse welfare grounds - and then one is asked to reconsider.  It's rarely black-and-white about whether the horse is or isn't fit to run (he usually hasn't broken down or fallen blatantly ill, but rather it is the case that you have vague misgivings about his health or soundness, or about the wisdom of running him on ground that he isn't going to like). 

What re-offering races means is that trainers can be tempted into running horses when their better judgement has told them that they ought not to be running.  This is a welfare issue, and I was reminded of this on Sunday when Mrs Doyle said, "Ah gowan, gowan, gowan, gowan, gowan" to me when I had very regretfully decided not to declare Indira for a race which there had ended up with only four declarations.  As things have turned out, I am totally happy with the decision not to run Indira today, much though it irked me to watch the race with only four runners in it while thinking, "If only ... ".  I'm considerably less happy, though, with the fact that the BHA rules forced Weatherbys to try to tempt me into running a horse who, out of fairness both to the horse and to punters, clearly should not have run.