Last Wednesday we had the Duel on the Downs. Of course, even in advance we knew that this wasn't really going to be a duel (because there were four runners, rather than two). And once the race was underway, we knew that it definitely was not going to be a duel: as Richard Hughes remarked afterwards, it would have been nice if there had been a duel, but there wasn't. Canford Cliffs never looked like posing a threat to Frankel, and the only fight for any of the placings was the short scrap for second between Canford Cliffs and Rio De La Plata. However, the Duel on the Downs it was, and shall remain. I was thinking about it this morning incidentally, when I passed Frankel and took what I consider to be a lovely photograph, which (bearing in mind that last Wednesday he was the eye of the storm which the Duel on the Downs occasioned, whereas today he was just another horse on the Heath in an oasis of peace) could either be titled "What a difference a week makes" or "Far from the madding crowd".
Anyway, moving on from the Duel on the Downs, tomorrow we might have what one, if one wanted to manufacture another cliche, might term the Duel on the Dunes: Kadouchski might run in a two-runner race at Folkestone (which isn't a seaside track, but which is often regarded as such by people who have never been there but who are aware that Folkestone is a coastal town). There are actually three declared runners, Kadouchski, Fire Fighter and Whitcombe Spirit, but the last-named will seemingly "only run if there is sufficient rain". As today is hot (c. 30 degrees) and dry, one might have thought that we're in for a match; but the forecast is for heavy rain tomorrow, so I'd guess that we might not have the blue skies against
which Kadouchski surveyed the scene of his triumph four weeks ago, and that Whitcombe Spirit will take part. However, if a four-runner race can be a duel, so can a three-horse race. Whitcombe Spirit finished 11 lengths behind Kadouchski four weeks ago when they were first and fifth over course and distance and will be only 1lb better off (this seeming anomaly coming from the fact that Whitcombe Spirit will be 9lb out of the handicap tomorrow) - but that, of course, doesn't guarantee that he won't win. And he will be the outsider of three, which ought to give him some sort of chance. Fire Fighter, who won
over 12 furlongs at Folkestone (pictured above) in 'workmanlike', rather than impressive, fashion the same day that Kadouchski won there, will start favourite and ought to win again if he is indeed progressing in the way which his form suggests. However, I believe that he is a bit of a playboy, so if it were to boil down to professionalism, good old Kadou, whom Hannah will ride again, would have the edge. Anyway, that's tomorrow's duel, and I'm looking forward to it - even if it won't be making any headlines anywhere other than on this blog. Let's just hope that Kadouchski can be inspired by Frankel's virtuoso duelling - or by the first Classic winner whom he saw today, Oaks victrix Dancing Rain, seen here walking onto the first sand under Kadou's masterful gaze earlier this morning.
Last Wednesday we had the Duel on the Downs. Of course, even in advance we knew that this wasn't really going to be a duel (because there were four runners, rather than two). And once the race was underway, we knew that it definitely was not going to be a duel: as Richard Hughes remarked afterwards, it would have been nice if there had been a duel, but there wasn't. Canford Cliffs never looked like posing a threat to Frankel, and the only fight for any of the placings was the short scrap for second between Canford Cliffs and Rio De La Plata. However, the Duel on the Downs it was, and shall remain. I was thinking about it this morning incidentally, when I passed Frankel and took what I consider to be a lovely photograph, which (bearing in mind that last Wednesday he was the eye of the storm which the Duel on the Downs occasioned, whereas today he was just another horse on the Heath in an oasis of peace) could either be titled "What a difference a week makes" or "Far from the madding crowd".
Anyway, moving on from the Duel on the Downs, tomorrow we might have what one, if one wanted to manufacture another cliche, might term the Duel on the Dunes: Kadouchski might run in a two-runner race at Folkestone (which isn't a seaside track, but which is often regarded as such by people who have never been there but who are aware that Folkestone is a coastal town). There are actually three declared runners, Kadouchski, Fire Fighter and Whitcombe Spirit, but the last-named will seemingly "only run if there is sufficient rain". As today is hot (c. 30 degrees) and dry, one might have thought that we're in for a match; but the forecast is for heavy rain tomorrow, so I'd guess that we might not have the blue skies against 
which Kadouchski surveyed the scene of his triumph four weeks ago, and that Whitcombe Spirit will take part. However, if a four-runner race can be a duel, so can a three-horse race. Whitcombe Spirit finished 11 lengths behind Kadouchski four weeks ago when they were first and fifth over course and distance and will be only 1lb better off (this seeming anomaly coming from the fact that Whitcombe Spirit will be 9lb out of the handicap tomorrow) - but that, of course, doesn't guarantee that he won't win. And he will be the outsider of three, which ought to give him some sort of chance. Fire Fighter, who won
over 12 furlongs at Folkestone (pictured above) in 'workmanlike', rather than impressive, fashion the same day that Kadouchski won there, will start favourite and ought to win again if he is indeed progressing in the way which his form suggests. However, I believe that he is a bit of a playboy, so if it were to boil down to professionalism, good old Kadou, whom Hannah will ride again, would have the edge. Anyway, that's tomorrow's duel, and I'm looking forward to it - even if it won't be making any headlines anywhere other than on this blog. Let's just hope that Kadouchski can be inspired by Frankel's virtuoso duelling - or by the first Classic winner whom he saw today, Oaks victrix Dancing Rain, seen here walking onto the first sand under Kadou's masterful gaze earlier this morning.
8 comments:
Great 'head shot' of Kadouchski John :-)
Kadouchski running in a race £700 below tariff...at a track that is consistently putting these types of races on. Have you signed the Horsemen's Charter, John ? Can hardly point to pressure from owners in this instance !
All that is true, The Black Minnaloushe. I am far from proud that I have now run in two below-tarriff races (the first occasion being when Silken Thoughts ran at Newbury on Sunday). And I readily admit that I was coerced into doing so on neither occasion.
The situation is this. I believe that the tarriffs, certainly as regards Flat racing, have largely achieved what they set out to do, which was to impress upon racecourses that they should not take owners', trainers' and jockeys' patronage for granted. (Over jumps the reverse is true, as all the tarriffs achieved was to confirm to racecourses what they previously had only been able to suspect, ie that they could take owners', trainers' and jockeys' patronage for granted). Unfortunately, the tarriffs campaign also appears to have rather run out of steam, witness the fact that on the same card yesterday on which I ran Kadouchski in a below-tarriff race, Richard Hannon ran two horses in a below-tarriff race, Sir Mark Prescott ran one, Roger Charlton ran one, Marco Botti ran one etc.. Today, John Dunlop and Gary Moore both run a horse in a below-tarriff race. My stance all along was that I would join a boycott of below-tarriff races for as long as there was any noticeable sort of partial boycott to join - but now that there is no boycott to speak of, I have decided to lift my self-imposed automatic avoidance of below-tarriff races. There are now very few trainers in the country who have not run in a below-tarriff race. Luca, William Haggas and Godolphin - anyone else? I took the view that if the observation were to be made that Richard Hannon, John Dunlop, Mick Channon, Jeremy Noseda, Gary Moore, Richard Fahey, Sir Mark Prescott, Uncle Tom Cobley and all are happy to run in below-tarriff races but John Berry is sticking to his guns, the only sensible retorts would be either "Who?" or "Then more fool him".
Continuing straight on ...
... It was the same with the jumps tarriffs. I started out intent on honouring them, but by the end of the first week it had become apparent that Paul Nicholls, Nicky Henderson, Philip Hobbs, Alan King and Jonjo O'Neill, ie the five biggest and most influential stables in the land, were going to pay no attention to tarriffs - so since then I have done likewise. And the difference in the responses of the different bunches of trainers has produced very different results. The response from the jumps trainers to the tarriffs was pitiful, while the response from the Flat trainers was, relatively, very good, notwithstanding that the ultra-supportive Mark Johnston and Ann Duffield were about the only two trainers in the north who paid them any attention at all. The upshot is seen in the prize money. A handful of years ago, jumps prize money was very good, far better in general than on the Flat. Now we have far more jumps races below-tarriff than Flat races below-tarriff, while jumps prize money is no longer better (never mind much better) than Flat prize money. Even Folkestone's owner Arena, it should be noticed, has hugely upped its game as regards prize money since the tarriffs began to be observed by Flat trainers: even at Folkstone last night where two races were below-tarriff, the total prize money was more than the tarriff figures collectively said that it needed to be - and I'd bet that, but for the tarriffs, it would have been considerably lower.
It is, of course, a concern for the future that there is no longer any noticeable boycott of below-tarriff races, because it wouldn't take too long for the great strides which have already been made to be reversed. I would like there still to be a boycott - but as I said before, I cannot create a boycott; all I can do is join one - and if there isn't one to join, my making a stand in virtual isolation would have no effect whatsoever. I would love to believe that I was important or influential enough to make an impact, but with our 80 runners per year, or whatever we have, we are such a small fish that any unilateral action which we take would be completly futile.
NB - Just as a footnote to the above, it should be pointed out that there are actually probably no Flat trainers in the country who have not run in a below-tarriff race, bearing in mind that there are many Group races run below tarriff, but that we are encouraged to turn a blind eye to people running their horses in below-tarriff races if the race is classified as a Class One race.
Don't Fence Me In!!!
What an excellent debate. A rapier like thrust from a supreme stallion parried by the bucking broncho that is John Berry.
Interesting comments John. Who am I to tell you how to run your own business ?
One thing puzzles me though. From memory, the only boycotts over prize money have occured at Leicester. A ridiculously easy target when you think about it. Why have the trainers not had the gumption to take Arena on ?
I don't think that it's a case of having the gumption to take anyone one. Basically, the situation was that the Horseman's Group drew up a table of prize money levels which it believed that racecourses should be able to find attainable and said that it believed that racecourses should make actual prize money levels at least match these. It told owners, trainers and jockeys what it had done, and suggested that if they felt that prize money levels mattered, then they might like to think about not running in races below these levels. Clearly, if significant numbers of owners and trainers decided to make the suggested stand, then racecourses would re-think their stance and would raise prize money levels; but if enough owners and trainers decided that they would run however low the prize money, then nothing would be achieved.
Over jumps, it was immediately plain that the principal players would run irrespective of the money on offer, so no boycott ever occurred as the smaller players naturally concluded that any stance they made would be a futile and ignored gesture if the stables which dominate racing, as regards both quantity and quality of runners, ignored the tarriffs. The result is that jumps prize money continues to go downhill and a large proportion of jumps races fail to meet tarriff. I expect this proportion to rise.
On the Flat, however, the response by owners and trainers was very positive, although admittedly not in the north. There were partial boycotts for every race which fell below tarriff. There were, as you observed, one or two complete boycotts, but I'm surprised that there were even that many: complete boycotts, requiring unanimity among 100% of the connections of potential runners in a race, were always going to be few and far between. Even in the first week, when enthusiasm for the project was at its peak, Jeremy Noseda and Brian Gubby (if my memory is right) decided to run in the highest profile below-tarriff race. But there have been partial boycotts all the way through, as significant numbers of people avoided below-tarriff races, which consequently consistently got smaller fields than might have been expected. The result is that most racecourses (including all Arena tracks) have been keen to be seen as being onside with trainers and jockeys, and have consistently been scheduling far fewer below-tarriff races than would otherwise have been the case. Even Newbury and Leicester now seem to be putting on fewer than they would previously have done, with Redcar being the one notable expection. However, it has become increasingly clear that increasing numbers of notable stables have decided that they have done enough. When it becomes plain that the stables with many hundreds of runners per year are no longer going to avoid below-tarriff races, then any attempts at any worthwhile boycott will fail, hence the smaller people who were continuing to maintain the stance deciding that they, too, would desist, as any gesture which they make in isolation can achieve nothing other than making it even harder for themselves to compete against the big stables than it already is.
So that's the situation. It was never a case of having the gumption to take anyone on. It was a case that if one wanted to run a horse in a race, one would run him; and if one didn't, one wouldn't. Neither gumption nor confrontation was required. That remains the case. It is just now that far fewer people are deciding not to run when prize money is below-tarriff. Whether the substantial gains which have been made in prize money can be maintained now remains to be seen.
PS - In the middle of the penultimate paragraph, please read 'owners and trainers' for 'trainers and jockeys'.
Post a Comment