Sandown reflections

My predictions in advance of our trip to Sandown were mostly proved correct. The trip was indeed enjoyable (well, I enjoyed it anyway). Ethics Girl (who features in the first three photographs in this paragraph) and Silken Thoughts (who features in the next two) did indeed both run very well. Both were indeed well ridden. I just got the identity of one of the good riders wrong. I'd expected that Richard Mullen would ride Silken Thoughts (which was a fair assumption, as he was down in the papers to ride her). Sadly he called in sick - and there began the story. I should have just put Hannah down to ride her after that, and she would have ridden her very well, not least because she maintained her sequence of good rides by giving Ethics Girl a lovely ride in the previous race. However, with Silken Thoughts having previously given us such mixed messages as regards what conditions she actually wants, I felt it appropriate on this occasion to opt for a more experienced rider - but could I find one! Unbelievably, Luke Morris (who I think is still in second place in the jockeys' table for 2011 after his excellent winter, and who predictably gave the filly an excellent ride) was the third man I approached, after two jockeys who were there and who could do the weight easily both declined the ride because they said that they'd prefer to knock off earlier. Unbelievable. These were two middle-of-the-road jockeys, not long out of their apprenticeships and, one would have thought, eager to continue the process of establishing themselves as senior riders, as well as to earn some easy money. One had a ride in the previous race so would only have had to put his departure back by 35 minutes, while one had a ride in the race in the race before that so only had to stay an extra 65 minutes. So all they were asked to do was to stay on a little bit longer, ride a straightforward horse who had a good chance (which one could work out simply from a casual glance at the form, on the simple basis that she'd only finished 1.75 lengths off the winner on her most recent start 18 days previously, and was set to race off the same rating) and earn over 100 pounds (and considerably more if the filly won) for sitting on her for ten minutes. Their names have been withheld to protect the guilty, but you can imagine how I was left shaking my head in bemusement. Please just remind me of this incident when the PJA is next negotiating a pay rise for jockeys with the ROA, because I think that this incident tells us that, if you hear poverty being pleaded on jockeys' behalf, then you can take such a claim with a very big pinch of salt. Anyway, good on both fillies/mares who ran so well for us, and good on Hannah and Luke Morris who gave their mounts lovely rides. Ethics Girl ran off the highest mark she's ever been on (84 - compared to her highest winning mark of 73) and only finished 2.5 lengths off the winner in fourth; while Silken Thoughts ran really well to be third, doing everything right in the race and finishing only three lengths behind the winner Aiken, a very progressive (he's now won two from three) Selkirk full-brother to the Group Three winner Felicity and half-brother to the Group Three winner (and good stallion) Sleeping Indian, the 2011 Listed winner Nationalism and the Listed-placed Jalisco. Fingers crossed we won't bump into something of his calibre every time we run her!

Following on from the two jockeys who failed to cover themselves in glory when offered the mount on Silken Thoughts, I ought to remark that I wasn't particularly impressed by the Racing Post's analyst at the meeting either. (In this case I'm not withholding a name to protect the guilty - I just haven't bothered to look to see who wrote it). As mentioned above, Ethics Girl ran arguably as good a race as she's ever run in her whole life. I don't want to blow my own trumpet, but I think that that suggests that (a) I'd sent her to the races in good nick and (b) I'd put her in a suitable race. Had the latter not applied, then surely she would have finished a lot more than two and a half lengths off the winner, when racing off a mark 11lb higher than she's ever won off (in 31 previous starts) and 4lb higher than she's ever been placed off. Apparently the analyst disagrees: he believes that she was running over "a wholly inadequate trip". Fair enough: in advance of the race he might have believed that to be true (as presumably, many punters did, as she went off the 20/1 sixth favourite in a 7-horse field) notwithstanding the fact that she has won over the same distance (at Chepstow) and has won at Sandown over only a furlong farther. However, surely the evidence provided by the result might have suggested to him that he might like to reconsider his previous assumptions, and that maybe I wasn't placing the mare quite as badly as he had previously decided? Even Natagora can see that logic, and she generally finds form study quite a bore.