The 28 days are up; a new chapter is added to the Donec archive, and no trace of vandalism or graffito is to be seen. All my own work, unless the hand of the Almighty has been involved. If that were to turn out to be the case it would perhaps be time for those who do not share my views to think again.

JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE

In 2016 the Jim Best case was a horror story for the BHA: round every corner a set-up, under every stone a worthless witness being pampered. Result:  a parody of justice that ended in humiliation.

This led to the Quinlan report (which should be implemented in full by now). It was a wonderful piece of work designed to restore the Disciplinary and Appeal aspects of racing’s justice system to full health and some measure of respectability.

2017 brought us the case of the “brainfade” jockey Adam Carter who in 2014 “stopped” a horse and changed his story four times over the next three years, while the BHA held its breath. In one of the versions Carter accused two innocent men of involvement in the transgression. Subsequently he withdrew that accusation. At the end of the three years Carter was convicted of “stopping” the horse, and one might have expected the charges against the two men to be withdrawn. After all, this business had been casting a shadow over their lives for three years, simply because the BHA chose to accept the word of a serial liar who had actually withdrawn the accusation. Withdraw the charges? Never! That is not the BHA way!

Does that mean that the Quinlan report has made no difference? Not at all.  The framework is now in place which will facilitate (which is already facilitating) the introduction of genuine justice into racing’s courtrooms. However it must be understood that the warriors currently in the front line of the BHA’s war against the ungodly are set in their ways. As one highly respected lawyer said of the “Brainfade” case, the BHA must learn that abiding by correct legal process is more important than always achieving a conviction. It may take a bit of time before that lesson sinks in.

Incidentally, Quinlan recommended that more people with intimate knowledge of racing should be used on Disciplinary and Appeal panels, for obvious reasons. So what is the latest rabbit to come out of Mr Jamie Stier’s hat – Mr Stier being in charge of the disciplinary world at the time of the Best case and while the Carter case was coming to the boil?

His most recent recommendation is to question the value of Amateur Stewards as part of the stewarding teams which function at every race meeting. As we understand the system, each team consists of three Amateur Stewards and a Stipendiary Steward (a full-time professional paid by the BHA). Something like that. The Amateurs are keenly interested in racing, many of them have a lifelong background in or connected with the sport, they spend a lot of time learning the job, and they do it for nothing. To date they have done an excellent job, and the system works very well.

The hunger for complete control is one of the less attractive characteristics of some bureaucracies. But in this situation it must not be indulged. The Amateur Steward provides a healthy counterweight to any possibility of unlimited power getting into the wrong hands. In recent years, in the case of the whip rules, the interference rules and the management of Disciplinary and Appeal Panels,  we have seen that the wrong hands are conspicuous by their presence in the affairs of the Sport of Kings.

Here at Donec Towers we have a short list of heroes whose opinions we respect without argument.  One of them is ex-trainer Barry Hills.

“The day they do away with amateur stewards will be a sad day for racing generally,” said Mr Hills, speaking recently to the Racing Post. That is good enough for Donec.

 

MANTON

There is talk of the finest training establishment in the world being up for grabs or heading for dissection or even destruction sometime in the not too distant future.  But of course I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

Could this not be a suitable project for Jockey Club Estates/Enterprises? Does it not already own and manage vast swathes of Lambourn and Newmarket? If the Jockey Club wanted to have a lot of fun and do racing a favour, what better project than Manton? It already has the freshest air in the world plus wide open spaces and no traffic, in addition to superb grass gallops, and several top class  all-weathers.

It is possible that, with the right number of horses, it might make sense in investment terms.

Alternatively, how about interest from Jockey Club E/E plus a small number of men and/or women so rich and so enamoured of the thoroughbred that they really would not mind paying over the odds for something of much, much more beauty than a Van Gogh or a Picasso. The 2^nd Lord Astor thought of Manton in those terms. Let it not be forgotten that the very rich are, and should be, quite choosy about the quality of their advisers, and I imagine the Jockey Club has got plenty going for it in that regard.

There was talk recently of Manton’s Derby gallop being sold off because it was “too far away from the main gallops”. Really? Five Derby winners managed to accomplish the round trip on a regular basis without falling to pieces.

Your author spent two glorious years up on Manton Down in the distant past and can assure the reader that Manton is “heaven” in the language of the Gods.

 

ARROGATE

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

In a 7-race unbeaten spell, Prince Khalid Abdullah’s Arrogate (trained in America by Bob Baffert) became the winningmost horse in the world.

After a rest, he was aimed at the Pacific Classic, a million-dollar race on August 20th 2017 at Del Mar, and took in a prep race at the same track four weeks beforehand. In the prep race he ran appallingly, came under pressure at halfway and was fourth of five, beaten 15 lengths by a horse called Accelerate.

Mr Baffert could not explain this defeat, he declared that there was nothing wrong with the horse physically the following day. He suggested the result was his fault for perhaps being too easy on the horse in its preparation for the race, and speculated that the horse’s psyche may somehow have become disturbed. He stated that, all else being equal, Arrogate would still line up at Del Mar on the 20th August as planned.

He did, and the starting gates duly flew open.

After two furlongs the commentator announced that the pace was slow for a top grade race. This judgement  seems to have been correct, as the early leader Collected stayed in front throughout.  Arrogate was in third place most of the way, but the commentator was not impressed. “Uncomfortable”, “under pressure”, “struggling”  were words he used to describe the horse’s progress. Arrogate  made his way up the straight in laborious fashion until the last half-furlong when he began to fly. He was beaten only half a length and would have been in front in three more strides.

Trainer Baffert who also trained the winner Collected (second favourite) was reasonably happy that Arrogate had run a much better race than on the previous occasion and had been beaten by a good horse this time. He finished three lengths ahead of Accelerate, which had beaten him 15 lengths in the prep race.

Questions have been asked about whether  the Del Mar track, which was made softer for this meet to ensure more safety for the horses, was to his liking. Baffert played down that issue, but Mike Smith, the jockey who has ridden Arrogate his last six races, said he didn’t respond with his usual verve when he asked for it on the backstretch.

“When I asked him to go, he never went,” Smith said. “He just got longer and longer and longer (in stride). Usually, when he explodes, he gets compact. His back end goes way underneath him, and he accelerates. He just seemed to be pulling himself out (of the soft surface).”

“It ain’t his favourite track,” Smith concluded. “In saying that, he’s only a neck off a horse that is probably going to be fancied in the Breeders’ Cup. So if that says anything, we’re not too far away from it.”

Mike Smith did not discount the possibility that the track was to blame for Arrogate’s discomfort throughout the race. On the other hand he also described the horse’s “action” in terms that could well indicate problems in the lumbar areas (behind the saddle, where the thrust comes from). But if the truth lies in that direction, how does one explain the speed he showed in the last furlong?

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. And it may be resolved at the Breeders Cup in November. Or it may never be resolved. Just another example of how this fascinating sport can cause problems for even the very best of professionals working with even the very best of performers.

RUGBY – THE WOMEN

England v New Zealand (World Cup final)

“Must watch!  I’ll bet they play a better game than the men. An attacking, ducking, diving, dodging, running, passing game!”

I was bitterly disappointed. Those marvellous women (both sides) have been brainwashed by what passes for the intelligentsia of international rugby and are playing the same deadbeat game as the men.

Attacking ploy number one: eight girls form a tight-packed scrum-type formation with the ball somewhere towards the back and advance at two miles an hour towards the opponents’ line. Fun to watch? No, sir.

Attacking ploy number two: three women worm their way forward with the ball, and when they are flattened the ball emerges behind them and three other women take control and do the same thing, and so it goes on, at three miles an hour this time. Fun to play? Most unlikely!

Endless breakdowns, just like in the mens’ game, full of sound and fury, and too much that is close to the area known as foul and dangerous.

The other night I watched “Sir Gareth Edwards at 70” on the box. In the audience were Phil Bennett, JPR Williams, John Dawes, Gerald Davies, David Duckham, Tom David, and a host of others of that generation. On the big screen Willie John McBride and Barry John. A generation that produced rugby of an almost supernatural beauty. A generation that in 1971 produced the only Lions tourists ever to win a series in New Zealand!

Is there no point in my reminding the mandarins of World Rugby that these heroes of the past are not immortal? They will not last for ever. Would it not make sense to consult them, listen to them, trust them and do as they suggest?

Dear World Rugby, you could resurrect a game that is immensely attractive to play and to watch; a game that thrills all concerned and does not make every player at some stage or other a target for assault and battery, assault and battery – not in a fit of temper, but as a normal tactic aimed at removing said player from the field of action.  Rugby is meant to be a game, not a war!

There exists video footage of the 4th Test (Lions v All Blacks 1971). The one the ABs had to win to level the series. In those days it was taken for granted that if all else failed the All Blacks were entitled to play dirty, because they were the All Blacks. Within three minutes of the start three of the Lions had been felled in off-the-ball assaults. But the game was drawn thanks to a glorious drop goal by JPR Williams (now an eminent medical man) and the Lions won the series.

But what did foul play amount to in those days? I would hazard a guess that most of it consisted of punching, raking with studs, and barging/punching in the line-outs. A situation exacerbated by the fact that in those days (but no longer) the home nation provided the referees, the referees were much too patriotic, and the players couldn’t resist exploiting the situation.

But there was very little that could compare with the megawatt collisions that are part of the arsenal that coaches and fans seem to expect from their players nowadays.

Think about Big Hits.  So prevalent nowadays.  Big Hits means unnecessary violence. Are the authorities content to accept unnecessary violence on the field of play? In simple terms, if you tolerate Big Hits you are inviting brain damage to come to the party.

And where has this modern fashion come from?  From misguided law-making on the part of the rugby authorities. In order to reduce the number of scrums they have invented “the breakdown” which makes mayhem irresistible.

Undo the modern breakdown regulations. Re-evaluate the scrum. The scrum is the process that provides legitimate access to the game for people of very many different shapes and sizes. That in turn legitimises the claim that rugby is a game for all. Isn’t that what the authorities want?

The scrum is the process that provided the quick ball that launched the ‘71 Lions back-line into attack after attack of rugby such as has not been seen in nearly fifty years. The game is paying a terrible price for the authorities’ failure to appreciate its value.