Busy

Ten days since I last wrote a chapter but it seems longer.  I think that when I last wrote we had two runners coming up: Roy at Bath and Hidden Pearl at Lingfield.  We did indeed have them, and then we have had one more too, The Simple Truth at Yarmouth.  Roy's run was a small step forward from his lack-lustre resumption.  I was silly, really.  We'd dropped him out to last at Doncaster and he'd settled beautifully, and this encouraged me to drop my guard.  We decided merely to ride him in the second half of the field at Bath and that back-fired.  He doesn't relax so well away from Brighton and, not being taken right back, he was too headstrong through the race and duly weakened at the end.  But he did show some improvement from the previous run so we'll keep hoping.

We'll keep hoping with Hidden Pearl too, notwithstanding that her run at Lingfield was very poor.  Again, that was my fault.  She too can be too keen and it had never occurred to me to do anything other than cover her up in a race until, at Dylan Hogan's inspired suggestion, we made the running at Catterick and nearly won.  Anyway, for no reason other than we'd made the running at Catterick and nearly won, we made the running again at Lingfield.  What happened was what I was concerned might happen at Catterick, but didn't.  If that makes any sense.  Anyway, no harm done and we'll bounce back.

As regards The Simple Truth, he's very much Roy's younger brother.  Probably the main reason why Roy didn't win until he was five was that he was so headstrong as a young horse, and this little horse is currently too headstrong for his own good, on the racecourse anyway if not at home.  He showed plenty of speed (far more speed than you would expect) but was too keen and inevitably weakened at the end.  We'll go back to Yarmouth on Wednesday, seven days later, and I hope, with the freshness out of him, he will be less headstrong and consequently able to run better.  We'll see.  He's come out of the race well, anyway, and is in good shape.  We'll have a runner the next day too, at Pontefract when Dereham will have his first race of 2020 and the third of his career.

Those two trips (possibly plus Newmarket on Friday with Kryptos, although he may well end up going to Thirsk the following week instead) should add up to an easier assignment than my recent schedule, which saw me on the road five days out of six.  Bath Friday with Roy, and that was a tiring outing as it was a late race at an evening meeting on the other side of the country; nowhere Saturday; Lingfield Sunday with Hidden Pearl; up to Scotland and back Monday and Tuesday, taking a horse up to near Aberdeen which was a wonderful trip as I love driving through beautiful countryside, which means anything north of Newcastle, but a 1,000-mile round trip is a 1,000-mile round trip; and then Yarmouth Wednesday with The Simple Truth.  So it's good to have been at home for a few days since then.

There has been plenty going on for us to observe.  I was very pleased last weekend to hear Maureen Haggas in an interview on RTV expressing her disapproval of the permissive approach which the stewards take towards interference in races, an approach which has encouraged the current generation of jockeys to be far less concerned than they ought to be with the safety of their human and equine rivals.  I'm very much with her on this one, and I was pleased to see that Kevin Blake wrote a blog which showed that he's on the same wavelength.  It's a big subject, but I'll restrict myself to saying that racing in this country would be a lot less unsatisfactory if failing to prevent interference, or allowing interference to happen, was an offence, as it is overseas.

I think that I mentioned what a good thing it was in general that jockeys are currently restricted to riding at only one meeting per day, and I've been pleased to read that this view is widely held, including by most jockeys - which is what one would expect as the total income for jockeys in general will be the same, but their total expenditure will be considerably less.  Let's hope that this instruction may remain.  One thing that we don't want to remain, however, is a situation where the first prize for a listed race can be less than £10,000, as was the case with the Bet365 Rosebowl Stakes at Newbury yesterday.  (Thank God the race had a sponsor - think how little it might have been worth without one!).

Racecourses are clearly struggling at present.  Pat Masterton's excellent interview with Luke Harvey on Sky Sports Racing revealed that normally 48% of Newton Abbot's income comes from gate receipts plus food and beverage sales (good use of the word 'beverage', which for no reason always amuses me); while I think that I read that York gains 80% of its income from these sources plus hiring its facilities for non-racing uses on non-racing days.  These income streams have completed dried up at present.  Under the circumstances, I do think that it is time to revisit the subject of the disparity of the percentage of betting turnover which comes back to the sport in Britain and the percentage which comes back to the sport in the other major racing nations.

I know that in general the press will do its utmost to oppose any change in the status quo, their argument being that it is unrealistic to expect the punter to subsidise the hobby of racehorse owners.  However, I'd counter that line of thinking by saying that I don't think that it's unrealistic to state that providing prize money represents a bit more than merely subsidising a hobby; it sustains the sport and the employment which that sport generates, and that goes way beyond merely helping a few people to enjoy a cut-price hobby.  Furthermore, using the figures provided by Jed Shields and Jon Hughes in the Racing Post this week and in an essay which can be reached via a link on the home-page of www.ownersforowners.co.uk, I'm not totally sure that contributing towards a system which sees owners receiving on average 8p per £1 spent on the Flat and 6p per pound spent under National Hunt rules actually qualifies as subsidising.

On the subject of owners, surely we are getting near to an improvement on the current very limited scope for enjoying the day on the racecourse when one's horse is running?  Addressing this issue is arguably as pressing as addressing the prize money situation.  And if we can have 5,000 people at Goodwood on Stewards' Cup Day, it doesn't seem unrealistic to think that it could be permissible for a few hundred owners to be on the same parts of the racecourse as their horse, trainer and jockey (subject, of course, to the health checks which are currently in operation) and for rudimentary catering facilities to be on offer.  Catering outlets are open all around the country, so having one on a racecourse shouldn't be unfeasible.  Horse, owner, trainer, jockey and stable staff are all one team, and I'm not convinced that classifying owners as separate from the rest of the team is necessary.