Foxes and fings

In the last chapter I passed on a recommendation for Graham Triefus, Sam Hoskins and Don Clark for the ROA Council ballot, while saying that there were probably other candidates whom I also know, like and respect but that, as I hadn't looked the list of candidates, I didn't know about them.  I still haven't looked at the list of candidates but, even so, I have found out that there is (at least) one more in that category: Gay Kelleway.  Anyone who knows anything about Gay will, I am sure, hold the same opinion that I do: that she would be a great asset to the ROA Council.

I bumped into Gay in Hamilton Road yesterday morning and had a chat with her on the subject, which left me even more convinced that she would be an excellent ROA Council member.  What also interested me is that she shares my belief that we would be wiser to hold racing without starting stalls while lockdown protocols still apply in the country.  I've been very surprised that this has never even been mentioned in discussions on the subject, but to Gay and me it is obvious: one can easily hold races without starting stalls (as National Hunt races continue to prove, as all races proved until the mid '60s, as many Flat races proved until the '70s, and as a few Flat races still prove even to this day) but one can't hold races with starting stalls without compromising one's social distancing measures.

The issue of starting stalls is already set to cause a major problem in the forthcoming weeks.  We have rightly been told that we should not run horses who are unruly in the preliminaries, unruly at the start or difficult loaders, and that 'any horse showing unhelpful behaviour will not be allowed to enter again until further notice'.  This is going to be a nightmare, isn't it?  There is going to be so much ill feeling caused by the application of a bar on unhelpful horses.  How is this going to work?  There will be plenty of horses showing unhelpful behaviour, but they aren't all going to be stood down from racing, are they?

Horses being sent for stalls tests works well because there are fairly hard and fast guidelines about when a horse should be sent for a stalls test.  But simply to say that they'll be barred for the time being if they show unhelpful behaviour will be a nightmare.  It will be so subjective.  There are sure to be some horses barred who (in the eyes of their connections, anyway) show less unhelpful behaviour than some horses who are aren't barred.  Everyone is going to be watching everyone else's horses, and making notes to use in their own horse's defence when (not if) they have a horse who is unhelpful.  What if Pinatubo or one of the other 2,000 Guineas principals messes around before the start, but goes in eventually?  Will he subsequently be barred?  And, if not, will the same leniency be shown to others?

See what I mean?  It'll cause so much ill feeling.  And, by the way, it is right that this stipulation is in place: if we are going to race from stalls in a time of social distancing, then it is imperative that only horses who do not play up at the start are sent to the races.  But it's a policy which is guaranteed to cause problems, but wouldn't be an issue at all if we raced without stalls for the time being, which would totally remove the justifiable and inevitable concerns about lack of social distancing at the starts of races.

Oh, by the way, I've worked out why Ascot has been so adamant throughout that "Royal Ascot" will be going ahead next month (even though, correctly speaking, it won't, as anyone who understands English knows that we'll be having a behind-closed-doors version of Ascot Heath rather than of Royal Ascot).  It's because of the World Tote Pool which had been agreed for the meeting.  The World Tote Pool is a great boon for Ascot (if I read a South China Morning Post article correctly, it will benefit by a figure in excess of £500,000 each day) and thus for British racing, and I can quite understand that Ascot might fear that the agreement might be jeopardised if they didn't call the meeting 'Royal Ascot'; and also that international punters might be less enthused if the magic word 'Royal' did not appear in the title.  Silly, isn't it?  But any such fears probably are valid.  It's 'marketing', isn't it?  And 'Royal' is the marketing equivalent of double sixes.  (The pedant in me will still be referring to it as Ascot Heath, but don't mind that).

I had one little chuckle yesterday, when Jana asked me who would be likely to be riding Hope Is High at Yarmouth in the middle of next week, notwithstanding that the entries, never mind the declarations, for the race haven't yet closed.  I seem to recall that in a previous chapter I was musing about how on earth it could have happened that a trainer could have run two horses in the Ballarat Cup and put the two jockeys each on the wrong horse, without anyone noticing - in particular, without the strappers noticing.  It made no sense at all.  To illustrate the point, I think that I said that whenever we plan to have a runner, the first question asked by whomever looks after the horse is the identity of the jockey.

I just couldn't envisage one of my staff taking a horse to the races and not being interested enough to know who was going to be riding or to fail to notice if I legged the wrong jockey aboard - never mind two of them failing to notice at the same time.  Hope (pictured with Jana on Southfields on Saturday in the final three photographs) will be (assuming that she gets in - and I'm quite optimistic on that score as the entries for the handicaps at the first meeting, Newcastle on Monday, aren't nearly as big as I had been expecting) our first runner since we observed and discussed the Ballarat debacle, so I'm pleased to see that my confidence in my staff is looking justified.  It's going to be quite daunting going to Yarmouth with all the protocols we shall have to follow, but at least one thing I don't need to worry about will be Jana not picking me up on it if I (in a socially distant manner, of course) leg the wrong jockey on board!

One other good thing yesterday, apart from this glorious weather, was that Ivona and I saw a fox as we were trotting up through the trees along the Hamilton Road side of Southfields yesterday morning.  It wasn't too worried about us and we passed within a few metres of it.  That was a real treat: we see plenty of interesting wildlife, including small deer, on the Heath, but a sighting of a fox is rare.  Mind you, I'm watching the 6.00 news on BBC1 as I type this and that has just shown a fox trotting past the front door of 10 Downing Street, so maybe our sighting wasn't so special after all.  But we enjoyed it.