Without the PSYCHOLOGY, which turned out to be a trifle too turgid, and can be kept for another day.

 

TINGLE CREEK CHASE, SANDOWN

FIFTH DECEMBER, 2015.

Sire de Grugy jumps across Special Tiara at the last causing maximum interference and practically turning the victim sideways (See You Tube Tingle Creek Chase 2015, 3 minutes, 30 seconds onwards). As both horses land, SDG is about a length ahead of ST and facing towards the finishing line, towards which he proceeds to move, whereas ST has to change direction before being able to go in pursuit.

Sire de Grugy, with his jockey riding at full power, passes the post ¾ of a length ahead of Special Tiara, who reduces the deficit and is continuing to reduce it, very slowly, as the horses cross the finishing line.

The report on the subsequent stewards’ enquiry – I quote:

“The interference caused Special Tiara to lose some ground and momentum.” (Gross understatement.)

“The winner appeared to be holding him comfortably” (Far from the truth.)

“The winner did not improve his placing”.

This sentence is part of the key to the chamber of horrors. It is the essence of a principle which has for several years been touted round the racing world by Mr Stier, currently the BHA’s Regulator, and has been rejected everywhere except in Britain.

A principle that allows the perpetrator of assault and battery to keep the spoils of victory, if it survives that assault better than the victim; a principle that allows  the results of races to be determined not by solid rules but by the opinions of stewards and stipendiary stewards, whose intelligence, judgement and objectivity are in no way guaranteed.

If one burrows deeper into the arcana of the BHA Rule Book one will find more of the same, as follows: BHA Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2015, page 17, “C” of Guiding Principles: In cases of interference, the benefit of the doubt belongs to the horse than finishes in front. In the real world, that is not the way things are done.

It is not surprising that no other sport in the history of the world (apart from cage fighting, perhaps) has ever considered adopting such a principle, which has already done considerable damage to the reputation of British Racing, and will continue to do so until every vestige of this poisonous recipe is removed from the menu.

PS (11.44 a.m. Jan 2nd 2015.) 

My most respected critic asks, “Was it not injudicious of Special Tiara to challenge Sire De Grugy on his left at the last fence, when that horse was known to jump lefthanded?”

The answer is “No. Look at the film of the 2nd last fence. Sire De Grugy, two lengths clear of Special Tiara, jumps left. On landing directly behind him, Special Tiara tries to challenge on his RIGHT (the safe side considering the leader’s lefthand tendency). Simultaneously Sire De Grugy’s jockey pulls hard right (across the front of Special Tiara) towards the rails, and the only avenue available to Special Tiara was on his LEFT. So, Special Tiara found himself on the dangerous side of SDG at the last because of the latter’s erratic progress over the 2nd last and on the run to the last. A vital element in the latter stages of the race which apparently wasn’t even mentioned in the Stewards’ enquiry. Charming!

FLOODING

Consider the following: water runs downhill, the north of England is full of steep slopes, oil pipelines are laid with remarkable speed, as are water pipelines. Is it not true that a vast amount of Swindon’s water comes from the Lake District on a daily basis? Is it not true that the Lakes are huge holes full of water which has run down from the hills and settled in those inviting depths? This water has provided the basis for human survival in the area; hence Keswick and many other lakeside towns.

Would life in flood-prone urban areas of England be tolerable if the excess water were reduced by 20 percent?

If the answer were “Yes”, would it not be possible to spend the summer of 2016 surveying the uplands and identifying locations where streams could be diverted if the need arose? The diversions would lead twenty percent of the running water away from the route that threatened the towns below, and in the direction of uninhabited terrain. Thereabouts agricultural land could be flooded, and the owners of the land handsomely compensated.

In other cases great holes could be created very quickly (dynamite) some way along the diversions. They would become lakes at time of flooding, lakes equipped with pumps connected to pipelines which would carry the surplus water as far as required (to the sea, if necessary….)

The question is: would such a process be capable of reducing the effects of flooding to a comfortable level?

[Donec believes that the citizen is duty bound to come to the aid of the nation in time of disaster]

BIG FIELD STARTING

The bad news is that the genius behind the present starting arrangements under NH rules persists in believing that you can arrange a large number of runners in a large number of ranks, one behind the other, so that those in the rear are ten or fifteen lengths behind those at the front when the tapes go up – without depriving most of the runners of all semblance of fairness. It cannot be done. Most of those runners are penalised before the race has even begun.

The most recent example was the Ladbroke Hurdle at Ascot, December 19^th 2015, with 21 runners. As the field advanced towards the tapes, C4’s Mick Fitzgerald was commenting on the length of the “procession”, on the advantage of being in the front two ranks, on the difficulty that would face those at the back when they tried to get into contention.

The replays suggested that there were 20 lengths between first and last at the first hurdle and 30 as the field landed over the second – entirely due to the patently obvious fact that a  “procession” guarantees unfairness, and a “big-field procession” guarantees “gross unfairness.”

That case featured 21 runners. How will 30 runners cope (Cheltenham)? How about 40 (the Grand National)?

The suggestion has been made that the present arrangements could be workable if the last thirty/forty yards towards the tape were used to allow the runners to spread out laterally, thus reducing seven or eight ranks to two or at most three – a reasonably fair arrangement. So far the suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.

ALEX (Daily Telegraph Cartoon)

We continue to be amazed by this magnificent mirror image of the weird world in which we live. Recently the artist has turned a bit-part player (Clive, a punch bag for the big hitters) into a tragic hero, and a comic tragic hero at the same time, which takes a bit of doing. And that is not all.

Yesterday’s hot news (the last day of 2015) concerned the shelving of a report into the bad behaviour of bankers. The story explained that the shelving was because “regulators” of the banking world (the guardians of financial morality) were being offered huge sums of money to jump ship and join banks. Gamekeepers becoming poachers… shock, horror! Alex featured that very story several months ago! Who is this Alex person?  Could he not be made Prime Minister?

KING GEORGE V1 CHASE

Best race of the season to date. The winner by a head was Cue Card, ridden by Paddy Brennan. The winning jockey was fined £4,200 and banned from riding for 11 days for using his whip more often than the rules allow. This reminds the racing public and the animal rights public that the racing whip is a dreadful weapon (which it isn’t) and that counting hits is the way to monitor its use (which is far from being the case).

What do these fines and bans actually do? They malign the whip and they arouse anti-racing animosity which the sport does not deserve.

In fact the British Racing Whip does not hurt and is horse-friendly. It is so horse-friendly that the British racing authorities were the first national body to promote it when it was developed by the late Jim Mahon. That promotion was so successful that nowadays virtually all racing authorities in the world have adopted it, simply because it enables jockeys to encourage horses without hurting them.

So how come the British Horseracing Authority promotes this whip, and yet a department within that authority campaigns against it? We feel sure that such a tug-of-war within the confines of a single building in London’s West End over a matter of the greatest importance cannot be in the best interests of the sport.

As for the importance of the number of hits dished out by a jockey, we at Donec are confident that Cue Card pulled up at the end of his race perfectly cheerful and perfectly comfortable, and that every one of the hits that he received was required to help him get his head in front on the line.

Of course the use of the whip should be monitored, but the number of hits is nowhere near being a proper way of evaluating its use.

RISHI PERSAD

For several years young Mr Persad has been my favourite sporting presenter. Why? He has manners. He knows his subject. He interviews because he wants the public to hear what the interviewees have to say, so he gives them more air time than he takes for himself. He has charm. He puts people at ease. His interviewees clearly enjoy the experience of talking to him, which is not always the case with other presenters.

That was my opinion up to the middle of 2015.

Then, last autumn, catastrophe. I saw Rishi pontificating…. on the subject of Golden Horn…. very shortly after that horse had been beaten at York. On the receiving end of his haughty interrogation was the unfortunate John Gosden who was in great pain: firstly, because sticky ground had caused his top horse to be beaten, and secondly because young Mr Persad was acting as though he owned the animal. He wanted to know why it had been beaten, and where it would go next, and did the trainer favour the Arc route or would he take in the Breeders’ Cup, or both.  Unbelievable! And yet – there it was – before my very eyes.  Most unkind…. at such a time. Eventually poor Gosden ran away – red in the face, rolling his eyes, muttering over his shoulder and looking as miffed as I have ever seen him.

What on earth had got into Rishi? Was he drunk? Had he won the Lottery? Was he now going to reveal his vindictive side? We may never know. In my mind I said goodbye to the charmer that had given me so much pleasure, and that was that. A sad day.

This afternoon…. this New Year’s Day 2016 afternoon, we switched on the television and found ourselves at Cheltenham….. and Nick Luck was projecting his voice in all directions (would someone please tell him that with a microphone you don’t have to shout all the time? Him and Jeremy Paxman are two of a kind). Then he did a neat little seguay (is that what you call it?) and we were at Musselburgh! In the company of Rishi… the old Rishi – relaxed, balanced, attentive, charming, good as ever. What a joy! Happy New Year, Rishi!

Happy New Year to you, too!

Donec.

 

.