Friday, June 05, 2020

Planning

I enjoyed our trip to Yarmouth on Wednesday, which was a relief.  I'd found the thought rather daunting: if you hardly leave Newmarket for 11 weeks, the idea of getting into a horsebox is daunting enough even without the added element that an afternoon at the races, whose formalities one can usually negotiate with one's eyes shut, was going to be very different than previously.  It's off-putting going anywhere when you know that there will be strict protocols to be followed and that you aren't familiar with them.  But it turned out that the staff at Yarmouth and the BHA employees were so well organised and helpful that it was a piece of cake, and there was none of the unease you feel when you're out of your element.

So that was good.  And further plaudits to Yarmouth were earned by what a great job they'd done with the track.  The infield was totally parched after the bone-dry month of May, so it was very creditable that the track, which had been left to itself for more than half of lockdown as the groundsmen were furloughed, was in great condition.  It was fast ground, but it was very well watered ground with a thick covering of green grass on it, and obviously it was totally unmarked, there having been no horses on it for nearly eight months.  You wouldn't have taken a horse there if you wanted to avoid fast ground, but only a minority of horses fall into that category; and for any horse who can handle fast ground, which most sound horses should be able to do, it was very acceptable.  And the icing on the cake was the free packed lunches for all participants!

Hope's run was fine.  She's never won first up, but she showed up well in a competitive race.  (I know that this isn't a tipping column, but those who read Sunday's chapter might note that I tipped the 7/1 winner, who is a very promising young stayer).  Looking ahead, Hidden Pearl has been eliminated from both her races on Monday but Kryptos is declared for Newmarket on Sunday.  I know that (I read in your comments from the last chapter - and thank you again for the feedback) you feel that trainers responsible for non-runners should be fined, Neil, but I have to disagree, and this is a perfect illustration.

For Sunday's racing, we had to declare on Thursday.  I'm not being difficult, but Kryptos (pictured here on Thursday morning) will be resuming after a 995-day absence caused by tendon trouble, and I'm not going to run him on ground faster than good.  That's just basic care and attention.  So what am I to do?  At the start of the week, I wasn't even going to enter him because the previous several weeks had been so dry and the track, although well watered, was clearly set to provide fast ground.  However, come Monday morning, the forecast was for a marked deterioration and a significant change in the weather, with much cooler temperatures and bands of rain sweeping down from the north.  That raised the strong possibility of good ground, so I entered him.

Come Thursday morning, we were forecast four days (ie Thursday - we had to declare by 10 am - to Sunday inclusive, the race on Sunday not being until late afternoon) and three nights of fairly regular showers or more solid periods of rain.  There was a strong chance of the track having changed at least to good by the day and time of our race, so it was a no-brainer to declare.  We have indeed already had quite a lot of rain; and, compared to what we've been having, it's bloody cold.  And we are forecast still to have a fair bit more rain than we've already had.  So my guess is that we shall end up running, notwithstanding that the ground is still (on Friday afternoon) still good to firm and there's no way we'd be running today.

But the original intention still stands: we won't run if it's faster than good.  We shall be a non-runner if it's still fast ground, and that could well happen.  Should I be fined if that is the case?  If so, for what?  For being protective of a horse who hasn't raced since 2017 because of tendon trouble?  If it's not acceptable for me to have declared him under these circumstances, he wouldn't run until the autumn.  It would be different if we didn't have to declare so far ahead of the race, but we do (and that's inevitable, as the BHA needs to know details of runners and, more pertinently, staff attending, and they need to get organised in that regard well ahead of time because of making sure that the COVID-19 protocol boxes are all ticked for everyone involved).

If one is going to have 72-hour (or, rather, 80-hour) declarations at a time when most races are oversubscribed, one will have smaller fields than is necessary unless one has reserves/emergencies.   (And it is worth pointing out that Australia, the country which is held up as a role model for declarations being taken three days ahead of the race, has emergencies for every race in the calendar bar the Melbourne Cup - and that omission is not by choice, but because the TAB's computer can't cope with more than 24 numbers, and it is the only race in the calendar which has a field that large).

I have no idea why we don't have this system under the current circumstances (and it wouldn't complicate the protocol preparations because the BHA would just have the boxes ticked for everyone, and if the reserves/emergencies ended up not getting a run, they'd just be non-runners, and it would no more complicate the paperwork than the other non-runners do).  But we don't have reserves/emergencies, so we're going to have smaller fields than we need.  It's inevitable, and to make it compulsory to run a horse once he has been declared (which is the direction in which fining trainers for having non-runners would be pointing) would be ludicrous.

One could, of course, observe, that it's one thing having non-runners on turf when there is the possibility for significant going changes between declaration-time and race-time, but that racing on the AW is another matter altogether.  And one would be right.  But there are other complications.  I heard Karl Burke interviewed on Sky Sports Racing two days ahead of the opening fixture at Newcastle (AW, obviously) on Monday, and he said that one of his declared runners two days hence would be a non-runner.  He said that the horse had come back from exercise lame that morning and couldn't run; and that the horse wouldn't have been declared if there had been 48-hour declarations, but with 72-hour declarations there had been nothing wrong with him at declaration time.

I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: the reason why you declare a horse is because you want to run him, and whenever circumstances change and welfare considerations mean that you can't run him, you are very disappointed.  You do not have non-runners out of awkwardness or a desire to mess people around.  Being fined for not running the horse would be rubbing salt into the wounds - and would result in people feeling pressured into running horses who shouldn't be running.  Who wants that?

But that's all by the by.  What matters most is that we're racing again, and that's thanks to the professionalism and diligence of the BHA and the people running these racecourses.  We started the day that the professional sport was allowed to begin (and I suspect that it was only allowed to begin that early because of the BHA's coaxing within Westminster).  In retrospect (even more than it was at the time), it's incomprehensible that the BHA were being criticised.  It's working really well - if my impressions at Yarmouth are anything to go by, if anyone is going to catch COVID-19 it won't be at a racecourse - and I only hope that when the cases and deaths start to rise again because of widespread public irresponsibility (which appears highly likely) racing won't be blamed and we won't have to suffer another hiatus.

3 comments:

neil kearns said...

My view on non runners at this time is actually that if the horse is taken out it should not be allowed another entry for fourteen days , have seen at least a couple of examples already of horses not running one day and reappearing three days later in presumably a more suitable race - not saying it should always apply just in the initial say six weeks to be fair to those who enter with a view to running and are ballotted out , as I said before I accept in normal times there are many reasons for none runners but as we know currently these are not normal times

neil kearns said...

The emergencies / reserves system would be fine as an option and negates a lot of my objections to current state of play but there seems a marked reluctance in the UK to ever have reserves which I find odd , as any absentee will affect the market anyway the argument that reserves have a major negative on markets is only true of those who play early and the bulk of people play on the day so turnover is unlikely to be inconvenienced
As I say I fully understand all your points on why a horse wouldn't run but also know a couple of contacts in the training ranks who are getting very frustrated (putting it mildly) at seeing their charges ballotted out and the non runners on the day and I have a lot of sympathy with their point of view and the reserve/emergency option should alleviate a lot of complaints in this odd period .

neil kearns said...

Best of luck with Kryptos , ground seems to have come right