Low acts

Good comments from Neil Kearns at the end of the last chapter.  Hard to disagree with any of that.  I've been asked by a few people what B12 would do.  The answer is nothing much.  I believe that when the use of anabolic steroids was still widespread, ie up to and including the 1970s, it was usual practice to give B12 injections at the same time as the anabolic steroid injections.  It might even be the case that "B12" or "multi-vitamin" might have been used as a euphemism for anabolic steroids for those of a sensitive disposition who preferred not to broadcast their steroid use.

But the important thing to remember was that it was the anabolic steroids which improved the horse's performance, not the vitamins.  God only knows what someone would hope to achieve by giving merely the vitamins - well, that's not true really, as I suspect that he would be trying to achieve the same effect as anabolic steroids.   But that would be wishful thinking: giving B12 injections on their own, unless to a horse whose diet is otherwise inadequate, is utterly pointless.  It's as surprising that anyone could believe that it would be money well spent as it is surprising that anyone could believe that it is acceptable to inject a horse with ANYTHING on raceday.

But then, as we are reminded so often, we don't all think along the same lines.  David O'Meara found that a few days ago when he became the latest trainer to receive hate mail.  In this instance this was from a man (if that's the right word - well, he's a man in the wider sense, if not by Rudyard Kipling's narrower definition) who appears to be called Andrew Thomas.  His billet d'oux ended with the endearment "... il f*@king burn ur stables down with the f*@king horses on there uv been warned".  Why do we have to put up with this sh*t?  Isn't it about time that the BHA prevailed upon the Old Bill to prosecute some of these w*&@ers?

It can't be legal to do this.  I seem to recall that there was a British diver who looked set for a gold medal in the 2012 Olympics, only to get his final dive wrong and have to settle for a minor placing; that someone sent him some really horrible hate-mail, including the observations that the diver's late father (who had passed away a few days previously) would be ashamed of his son.  Horrible, just horrible.  Anyway, I seem to recall that this piece of low-life was identified and prosecuted.  Something can be morally acceptable without actually being illegal - but if there was a law under which that bastard was prosecuted, then our verbal and psychological assailants could equally well be charged.

It would be easy for the police to track them down.  I watch enough detective dramas (dramae) on the television to know that making a communication whose origin can't be tracked is easier said than done nowadays, and it would be easy for the Old Bill, if they put their mind to it, to identify these clowns.  Particularly when the villains do it via email or telephone.  Or supply a name, as Andrew Thomas was thoughtful enough to do.  (One of the sweet things - well, the only sweet thing - about his missive was that, having written 'changes' earlier in the missive when had meant 'chances', he sent a follow-up one-word text ("Chances") to correct that particular spelling mistake.  Maybe he didn't realise that he had additionally made numerous other spelling mistakes.  Nor used any punctuation bar two exclamation marks side by side when one (or, indeed, none) would have been better.

I know that in one sense this isn't the BHA's business.  If one goes into, say, the Post Office, there will be a sign saying that the management won't tolerate unacceptable treatment of its staff, and that people physically or verbally abusing them will be prosecuted.  We aren't the BHA's staff, and in one sense it is not its job to protect us.  But it might be a good thing if it did do something.  Individually, we have very little chance of persuading the police to investigate and prosecute cases of hate-mail.  The failed and inaccurately-described policy of 'austerity' has meant that police forces are now so chronically under-staffed and under-funded that individually we would have little chance of getting anything done.

But the BHA could intercede much more effectively.  It is fair to assume that the BHA has an ongoing dialogue with the police, and is in a much stronger position to get something done than we are.  And being the catalyst for getting something done would be an excellent PR exercise which would cost virtually nothing.  The standing of the BHA's disciplinary department within the sport is not high at present after some high-profile and very expensive cases which do not appear to have been handled cost-effectively or well, not least with some failed prosecutions which achieved nothing other than wasting a fortune .  (And I don't include the Robin and Rebecca Bastiman case in this observation: that seems to have been handled impeccably).

What better or cheaper a way of redressing the balance than by chasing up the police to ensure that some of these pests are taken to court?  Let's hope that that happens.  I called the BHA last year when some trainers, including myself and, I believe, James Eustace and Hugo Palmer, had received some horrible calls from one of Hugo's and my compatriots, and was assured that the matter was being looked into in tandem with the police, and that progress was being made.  But even as the conversation was taking place I knew that nothing would come of this supposed proactivity.

So let's hope that now the BHA (who are very quick to spring into action if we do something wrong, even if our wrongdoing is nothing like as horrible as the low acts committed being by the likes of Andrew Thomas and his ilk; and who are very happy to ask us to pay through the nose for the privilege of having them as our overlords - trainers' licenses aren't just two-and-six, or whatever dog-licenses always used to be, you know) can do the right thing and (at minimal expense) continue to brow-beat the police until something is done about some of these ba@tards.

What else has been happening?  Well, we had our 29th runner of the year when Sussex Girl ran at Newmarket on Friday night, and our 30th when Wasted Sunsets ran at Yarmouth last night.  The former trip was annoying.  I knew in advance that it was a harder race than we needed to contest, particularly as the favourite, a lightly-raced and regally-bred three-year-old who had cost 300,000 guineas as a yearling and who had just won his first handicap at Windsor, looked to be extremely leniently handicapped and would clearly be very hard to beat.  But we were second favourite (albeit behind a horse who looked 'thrown in') and when you're second favourite for a race at Newmarket, you regard that as an honour and you run.  Don't you?

Anyway, the favourite predictably won.  But we got too far back in the race and finished unplaced, having done well even to get into a semi-challenging position inside the final two furlongs.  So that was a waste of a run.  With the wisdom of hindsight I wish we hadn't run.  Last night's outing, though, was much more satisfactory.  Wasted Sunsets had not shown much in her three qualifying maiden races, but carrying bottom weight in a Class Six handicap is a very different kettle of fish from contesting a weight-for-age maiden race.  Even though she's a nice filly, an athletic and genuine one, one couldn't, though, be certain that it would be a different enough kettle of fish.  But it was: she finished an excellent, close and very genuine third of 15 (very well ridden by Hayley Turner) so that was great. 

Runners 32, 33 and 34 of 2018 are looming: Sussex Girl at Yarmouth on Sunday, Roy at Epsom on Monday, Hope Is High at Epsom on Tuesday.  Theodore Ladd will ride Parek, in a race restricted to apprentices who haven't ridden more than 25 winners.  Ross Birkett will ride Roy in the amateurs' Derby.  I don't yet know who will ride Hope (who illustrates this paragraph, pictured having a mighty time in the lunge-ring one day last week).  All horses seem very well.  They'll be doing their best, as always; and we'll be hoping for the best, as always.  Always trying.  Let's hope that - win, lose or draw - they don't cause us to incur the wrath of any of our keyboard-warrior friends.