Carrying the can, but not the Cup

Well, to no great surprise, we didn't manage to bring the Brighton Cup back again.  The surprise was that Ethics Girl started second favourite, but the race saw her perform more in line with the morning paper's projected double-figure SP.  She finished 8th of 14, running OK but no better than that, and as she'd run in the race three years ago, when she'd seemed not to handle the track (a common problem at Brighton).  But as she won the race last year, it would be hard to say that she can't act down the hill at Brighton.  Whatever, she's rated 5lb higher than she's ever won off, and 9 stone 10lb for a small horse in a good field made it quite a task.  She'll bounce back - and a little bit of leeway from the handicapper wouldn't go amiss.

Still, aside from her unremarkable performance, it was a lovely day, primarily because we spent the afternoon in the company of Lawrence Wadey and his mum Pam.  Lawrence is the managing partner of the 1997 Partnership, and is as entertaining a companion as he is good a friend; so that guaranteed that win, lose or draw, the day was going to be one to savour.  Brahma of the day, though, had to be the reaction we got when we returned the cup (glistening from my polishing) to the weighing room, as the stewards and clerk of the course trooped out of their pre-racing conference to admire such a splendid trophy.  Pity The Mare couldn't retain it, but c'est la vie!

So that was our trip to Brighton last Thursday, which for us was the event of the week.  (And, by the way, the photograph in this paragraph, taken in the field yesterday, shows that there genuinely was no harm done to Ethics Girl).  For the wider racing world, however, I think that the event of the week was the non-event of the conclusion of the 'Sungate' investigation.  So I probably ought to air my views on this debacle.  Basically, the stewards were surely correct to take no action against the nine trainers who had told them that they have used the product.  There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, none of the nine ever had a horse test positive for the drug, and the only reason the stewards knew that the trainers had used the drug was because the trainers told them that they had.  Had the trainers decided to say that they'd never used it, the stewards would have been none the wiser, bearing in mind that Rossdales appeared not to be volunteering any information or assistance in the matter.  Secondly, while the nine trainers did use a banned drug (an anabolic steroid), they used it in the the belief that they were using a permitted drug (a cortico-steroid), and they used it as a cortico-steroid.  As there was clearly no intent to use an anabolic steroid, and no evidence that they'd used one other than their voluntary submissions, it would have been very, very harsh to take action, other than to issue a stern warning. Had a horse failed a drug test it would have been different; but none had, so it wasn't.

However, what I'm not comfortable with is the fact that the names of the nine trainers have been withheld because otherwise 'an unfair stigma would be attached to them'.  That's fine, in theory - but in practice it isn't.  It would be fine had the BHA not announced that nine Newmarket trainers have used a banned anabolic steroid - but the BHA has made such an announcement, so what this means is that all Newmarket trainers are now under suspicion of having (admittedly unwittingly) administered an anabolic steroid.  So we're all under suspicion in the eyes of the man on the Clapham omnibus.

It's nice of the BHA to be concerned about the nine miscreants having an unfair stigma attached to them.  But as the with-holding of the names means that all Newmarket trainers have now had an unfair stigma attached to us, it would have been far better for the names to have been made public.  And if the BHA were as concerned about preventing the innocent trainers from having an unfair stigma attached to us as it is concerned about preventing the guilty trainers from having an unfair stigma attached to them, then it would release those names.  It's not too late to do so, so let's hope!

I'm probably over-sensitive in this respect as this is the second time that we've collectively had to carry the can for the few.  You'll recall that Andrew Tinkler used to patronise some of the most expensive stables in the town, until he removed his horses while his racing manager told the press that Newmarket trainers' fees were unjustifiably high.  Andrew Tinkler disassociated himself from those remarks, but even at the time it was hard to believe that his manager had been going off on his own tangent - and that's now even harder to believe subsequent to his interview in June's Thoroughbred Owner & Breeder, when he declared, "There's no point in keeping horses in Newmarket if they aren't going to make it.  It makes no commercial sense: it's an expensive place for 60-rated handicappers to be based".

Which, of course, is nonsense, when one bears in mind that the four trainers whom he used (Michael Stoute, Henry Cecil, William Haggas and Marco Botti) are among the most expensive in the town, while there are dozens who charge far, far less.  The rate (£37 + VAT) in this stable is very competitive with any stable in the country, and there are many other trainers in the town who charge the minimum we can without going out of business because we want to offer value to our valued patrons.  From a personal point of view, I find it as irritating to read Andrew Tinkler disseminating the message that Newmarket trainers in general offer bad value simply because he chose to use only trainers who charge probably the best part of double that figure as I find it galling to know that the BHA has decided that it's OK for the man on the Clapham omnibus to feel that Newmarket trainers in general are drugs cheats, simply because it's more concerned with the reputation of the nine trainers who have used anabolic steroids than with the reputations of the 60 or so who haven't.