The one from the other

We're getting back into the silly season, if some of the articles I've been reading are anything to go by.  Two topics have caught my eye recently.  I haven't really been following it as closely as I should, but the BHA's seemingly mooted idea of introducing a stand-down period for a horse after a fall seems a very flawed idea; while its supposedly mooted idea of a 'cradle-to-the-grave' tracking system for horses is woefully unrealistic.  In theory, cradle-to-the-grave full traceability is a lovely idea, but it's pie in the sky.  And nonsense too.

Like it or not (and I don't particularly), British racing and breeding has become dependent on the export market.  We lag so far behind nearly all the other major or semi-major racing and breeding nations as regards our finances and funding that the only way we are able to hold our own is by being a significant net exporter.  (And, in fairness, Britain, in its position as the origin of the thoroughbred, has always been a huge exporter to other parts of the world where thoroughbreds are required, and it was this way even before the major investors were needing to maximise their income from overseas sales to stay in the game).

It's hard enough to keep a track on one's former horses after they have moved out of the racing system, even if they remain in Great Britain.  If they go overseas - as a large percentage of them do, thanks in part to the huge marketing machinery which the sales companies, breeders' associations and various BHA offshoots collaborate in organising - then it's almost impossible, particularly (but certainly not exclusively) when they go to countries where most people don't speak English.  Say a horse is sold to Australia as a Melbourne Cup hope (and this is a relatively straightforward scenario as he will spend his whole life owned by anglophones).

He's trained for two years in Melbourne or Sydney.  Then he ends up racing in, say, northern Queensland or western New South Wales.  Then he retires from racing and plays polo in Cairns for five years, or rounds up cattle near (ie 300 miles from) Charleville.  And then ...  And the BHA is considering putting together a department to track these movements!  Utterly pointless and barely feasible, and it would serve no purpose, benefitting no one other than the army of functionaries who will need to be employed in High Holborn to undertake all this detective work.

The idea of a stand-down period is another plan divorced from reality.  When a horse has a fall, he will often suffer both physical and mental damage which needs to be repaired (or to repair itself).  How long does that take?  Could be 12 hours, or could be 12 months.  Could be 24 hours, or could be 24 months.  Could be 36 hours, or could be 36 months.  To make a worthwhile assessment, you'd need at the very least to feel his legs and back, to watch (or preferably ride) him walking, trotting, cantering and jumping.  And to observe his general demeanour.   Compared to this, putting a set number of days on how long it takes for the horse to be ready to run again is just idiotic.  Well, not just idiotic: well-meaning too.  But idiotic even so.

It's like when people ask me (as fairly often happens, surprisingly enough) how often a horse can run.  My answer is generally, "How long is a piece of string?  There are some horses who can comfortably cope with racing three times in a week, and there are some horses for whom racing three times a year would be three times too many."  It's like that with a horse coming back after a fall: sometimes a horse can be ready to run again a day or two later, but sometimes a year or two can have elapsed without him being ready to run again.  If the BHA feels that there are some trainers out there who can't tell the one from the other, then it ought to be re-assessing the competence of its licensing department rather than creating yet more red tape.