A room with a view (as the previous chapter arguably should have been called)

That's another National Hunt Meeting / Cheltenham Festival / Cheltenham Spring Carnival been and gone.  One to remember for the Irish in general and for the stables of Willie Mullins and Gordon Elliott in particular.  And for Nicky Henderson's stable, thanks to the Champion Hurdle / Champion Chase double.  And for all connected to the mighty Native River, a very special horse whose partnership with the magnificent Richard Johnson is truly a match made in heaven.  Overall, though, the picture which arguably was painted of the future of National Hunt racing is another matter.

A tweet yesterday evening by @jamesaknight makes interesting food for thought: "The Ireland v. UK narrative is misleading. No-one really cares (bar the Irish perhaps). The real story of the Festival is the Elite owners/trainers v The Rest - and The Rest's dismal showing is the biggest concern for the sport."  This isn't a new concern.  We had a perfect illustration three years ago of the extent to which smaller players are now deemed not to be part of the script when Cole Harden, trained by Warren Greatrex (a trainer whom I very much admire), won the Stayers Hurdle.

This was hailed on TV as a triumph for the battlers.  Warren's interview elicited the information that he had 70 horses in his stable and was having eight runners during the meeting - and he, apparently, qualified as a battler.  If having 70 horses in the stable with eight of them good enough to run at the Festival marks you down as small-time, where does that leave the people who actually are battling (ie most people)?  Not even on the map, I suppose.  It's been plain to me for a while that National Hunt racing is now even more like the what the Flat is disparagingly held to be like than the Flat itself is.  But this year's Festival really rammed that home.

Another tweet yesterday, though, was much more heartening.  Well, part of it was, anyway.  The main part was just weird.  A national embarrassment if true, but probably just weird.  The tweet was from Guardian racing editor @tonypaley, who passed on a link to Chris Cook's report.  The text of Tony Paley's tweet used the headline which lay over Chris Cook's piece: "British Horseracing Authority may use barriers to keep Irish raiders in check, reports @claimsfive".  What's going on here?  Was yesterday 16th March or 1st April?  Surely our overlords couldn't even be considering any form of protectionism to help the home defence to hold its own?  Have we really sunk that low?  And even if we have, shouldn't we be too proud to admit it?

Chris' article, though, re-enters the realms of semi-normality during its second half, namely when it touches upon an interview given on ITV to Ed Chamberlain in the parade ring at Cheltenham yesterday by my MP, Matthew Hancock.  Chris' summary that Matthew's references to support for the sport, which apparently are "being interpreted by BHA officials as a commitment", were "so vague as to be almost meaningless" is probably fair.  But what heartened me in particular about Matthew's interview was his emphasis that "we" (by which I'm assuming that he means the government) are very keen to help stable staff.

This is terrific news - and even better if you actually think about it.  At first glance, there isn't much that the government could do to help stable staff.  But deeper contemplation quickly highlights one area.  Nowadays a high proportion of stable staff are not British citizens.  A large proportion are from non-UK EU countries.  For these people, Brexit is a major cloud on the horizon: they face uncertainty about their future in the UK, plus the mere fact that Brexit is apparently taking place makes them fear that they are living in a country where they aren't really welcome, fears which many of them have spoken to me about since the fateful decision-day when the people (ie 41% of the electorate or whatever it was) supposedly spoke.  So - take a deep breath - should we be taking Matthew's statement of intent to help stable staff as a sign that a U-turn on Brexit may be in the offing?

Mind you, the BHA, if it is indeed trying to find ways to hinder Irish trainers' plans to win races at Cheltenham, probably wouldn't be too pleased about any moves to abandon plans to take the UK out of Europe.  As Eire is in the EU and Cheltenham post-Brexit would not be, there would have to be a hard border at some point between the two places, whether between the Republic and the North, or in the middle of the Irish Sea.  And that would make transporting horses (or anything, come to that) between Eire and Cheltenham a more complicated procedure - which presumably would please the BHA if it is indeed keen to see barriers put in place to keep Irish raiders in check.  Not an insurmountable complication, of course - but every little supposedly helps.