REFLECTION

This virus is hell, but it gives one time to reflect. I reflect on the subject of the BHA. For the last sixty years this organisation has been claiming sick benefit, acting dead, or possibly just cheating the racing community by playing games which are designed exclusively for the benefit of the BHA itself. This has led to critics crying “Foul!” more frequently and louder. It has also inspired constructive critics to remind the industry’s partners (Jockey Club and Weatherbys, to name but two) that they have a duty to remind the BHA that it is duty bound to wake up and do a proper job.

At one point I put that point into words and posted them. The message was about recruiting Chairmen and Chief Executives. Could the BHA be trusted to do a better job in this day and age than had been the case over the last sixty years? I was immediately accused of lunacy. “Of course the BHA always does a wonderful job in that area! How dare you impugn its record?” That was interesting, because it is my impression that racing has stumbled and staggered through the last sixty years mainly because its top executives have been seriously inadequate. I thought the exchange of views was reasonable, healthy and long overdue.

There have also been opportunities in recent years for spreading the net to the Horsemens Group. It consists of the representatives of the various elements of racing’s community (breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff).  It too seemed to be reluctant to accept an obligation to react in advance to any questionable initiative that the BHA looks like implementing. Often, however, the reaction waits till after the horse has bolted. Not a good idea.

The good news (unless I am misreading the entrails) is that something may have stirred in the consciences of the guilty parties. My fingers are crossed, but I have a feeling that the appointments of Annamarie Phelps and Julie Harrington have been the work of committees which have tried to do more than just fill empty seats with convenient bottoms. Both the ladies concerned have been in the business of reviving the top level of ailing sporting industries, and both have done very, very well.

They are also complementary: Phelps is new to racing, Harrington knows all about it and loves it to bits. She also knows the BHA from several years of personal involvement – no likelihood of shock, horror and let me out of here! Between them, if they enjoy working together, these ladies are equipped to do the work of three giants.

SIR MICHAEL STOUTE

I imagine that one of his greatest contributions to the racing world has been to remind horsemen that the thoroughbred takes quite a long time to reach its full size and achieving its full athletic potential takes even more time. Consequently it is important to learn how to get a horse fit at home, on the gallops, where you can control the amount you ask it to do. The alternative is to get it fairly fit and then start running it – and in that case the major demands that the horse is required to respond to are not under the trainer’s control and may exceed the animal’s capabilities at that stage in its development.  In which case the response will be steady deterioration. Many, many many trainers belong to the latter group.

Such is the genius, and the patience of Sir Michael that his horses are raced less often than those of less intelligent trainers, continue to race for more years than those of most of his rivals and win more races. Apart from the question of fitness and ability, his horses seem to enjoy his regime and are pleased to respond to the tests to which he subjects them – which are (apparently) very nearly always within their capabilities. There lies the genius of the man.

I would guess (it is a guess) that the mighty Enable (trained by John Gosden) would not have continued to race as a five and six-year-old had it not been for Sir Michael’s example. She had a target: to win a third Arc de Triomphe. After winning it twice, she was 2^nd as a 5-year-old on ground that was too soft for her (Jockey Dettori blamed himself for firing the last retro-rocket 100 yards too soon) and seventh the next year, on ground that was even softer. In all she ran 19 times,won 15 races (and earned £10,724,320). She now has a lifetime as a broodmare ahead of her.

Talking of which, will someone tell me how one designs a mare’s stud career? I have heard that it is unwise to have her mated before she is four years old, because she is still growing. My reaction was to suggest that some thoroughbreds are still growing at five and six. Am I wrong?

Next question: granted that mares have foals into their twenties, does one send them to a stallion every year, or give them a year off every so often? That’s enough questions. I await your answers. Thank you.

FALSE STARTS

The three-month Experiment (trying to eliminate False Starts from big-field jump races) has now completed its first month. I live in hope. The good news is that it is happening at all. The problem became serious 16 years ago and the BHA did nothing apart from issuing press releases claiming that there was no problem. Sixteen years of hot air and no progress – do you blame me for a certain cynicism as far as the BHA is concerned? They still employ the man who composed these works of fiction, so I am modest in my expectations.

THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

Every so often I browse its “results “, and every so often I am reminded that it is an absolutely first-class safety-net for racing’s justice system. The hand-picked group who provide the panels (hand-picked not by the BHA, but by a very independent chairperson) are a superb mixture of horsemen (and women) with a lifetime’s experience of racing, and top class lawyers and ex-lawyers who have been enchanted by the racing game since childhood. If one needs any reassurance as to the quality of the personnel, just look at their portraits. You will see a collection of faces that Shakespeare would have been delighted to write plays about; handsome faces, full of good nature, worthy of trust.

If you then cast an eye on the cases where racing professionals are appealing against fines and/or bans incurred on the racecourse, you cannot help but be impressed by the thoroughness with which today’s jovial Elizabethans do their research. Particularly impressive are the instances where the racecourse stewards have made a mistake at some point in the development of their case. The Judiciary’s logic starts by identifying what it suspects is the mistake in the original judgement, subjects it to the closest scrutiny and only chooses to disregard it if the panel is sure that it is not a proper basis for a conviction. This makes such good sense, because racecourse stewarding is work under pressure, and work under pressure may well prove unsound in the light of further scrutiny under no pressure, and with the benefit of extra technology.

The Independent Judiciary, devised by Christopher Quinlan, QC, a genius, is the one beautiful thing for which  Nick Rust has been responsible in his four years as Chief Executive of the BHA, and will be his legacy, if Racing is man enough to resist any suggestion that it (the Judiciary) be discontinued, dissolved, dismantled. It is the best thing that the BHA has done in sixty years, but it does threaten the omnipotence of  the BHA’s Secret Service. Which is part of its job.

Best wishes,

Donec