MORNING GLORY

Several weeks ago there was a reference in the excellent RP to “morning glories”, a term which describes horses that eat up the ground at an amazing pace on the gallops – breathtaking in more senses than one. However when the beasts arrive at the races and the money is down, they invariably run well while the livin’ is easy (Billie Holliday), but are extinguished like candles in the wind (Elton John) as soon as they are asked to do the business.

Clearly such behaviour suggests a lack of moral fibre, but here is a thought that may provide a few of the delinquents with an excuse. Let us suppose that a fairly successful trainer follows a fairly strict rule of thumb as to the working of his horses. Let us invent one for him for a purely theoretical analysis which may just possibly have some bearing on the harsh facts of racing life. Let us say that the training of his middle-distance flat horses culminates in five reasonably demanding gallops, one a week for five weeks.

What if “Horse A” only needs four?

He works nicely (gallop 1), he improves (2), he is impressive (3), even more so (4), and catches pigeons (5). He runs a week later – and falls in a heap, as does the bank balance of his loyal supporters. Why this disaster?  Possibly he has peaked on the day when he was catching pigeons (5) and that effort reduced him to a shadow of his former self on race day. Just like that. “A morning glory!” they cry –bitterly!

Is there a way out of this minefield, without upsetting the applecart of our trainer’s more or less successful training methods?

Stick to the same plan. Let Horse A work nicely (1), improve (2), be impressive (3), even more so (4), and on the 5^th work day, instead of catching pigeons let him have two canters and a pick of grass!

Run him the following week, as planned (without any attempt to cram in another bit of hard graft) – he may surprise his long-suffering connections. Maybe they will feel remorse for having called him names.

I get the impression that good judges (among whom I do not count myself) tend to agree that one gallop too many is far more harmful than one gallop too few.

 

HAYLEY MOORE HORSE-CATCHER

Last month I praised the heroic behaviour of this excellent young lady. Being a creature of the Victorian Era (if not earlier) I forgot to mention that her epic endeavour is visible in colour on video if you Google the four-word heading above. Once again breathtaking is the mot juste.

 

SIR MICHAEL STOUTE

If the young trainer of today wishes to sit at the feet of the master (not that Sir Michael gives lessons, as far as I know), let him simply dial up the Racing Post on the internet and tap “Poet’s Word” into the “Search” facility.

Don’t bother about the 15 races listed under “Form”.  Have eyes only for the “lines” that divide groups of races from each other. Read between the lines and you will find numbers (178, 55, 217, 85, 50, 111, 54). The numbers denote the intervals, measured in days, over 4 years, which have empowered the horse to amass a fortune of nearly two million pounds, and to beat Cracksman at Ascot just recently. I seem to remember that Sir Michael’s post-race comment was to the effect that Cracksman may not have been at his best on that occasion – and there you have another clue to the quality of judgement that trainers need, if they are to scale the heights without losing contact with reality.

 

WINDSOR CASTLE STAKES, ASCOT, 2.40,  JUNE 23rd.

Before this race there was a long delay while a runner was re-plated up at the saddling boxes. For approximately a quarter of an hour a large field (24 runners) walked in a largely unregulated circle,  approximately fifteen to twenty yards behind the stalls: perfectly calm, perfectly happy, perfectly relaxed.

In fact, one horse kicked another, but the damage was negligible and the victim took part in the race. As this delay was a one-off occurrence with no particular drill laid on to ensure that all went well, that accident did not detract from the fact that this was a fine example of the importance of a relaxed atmosphere before a race starts – a principle that is one of the basics of the racing procedure. It also demonstrated how close to the start line a large field of horses can remain before a start and how much more amenable it is to the starter’s requirements than if it was wandering all over the racecourse.

So? So how is it that in the procedure before one very important type of race the preliminaries are guaranteed to upset horses and riders, and a formation is employed that simply eliminates any suggestion of the principle that all competitors should be on equal terms when the contest begins?

I am talking about big-field races under National Hunt rules (races with 17 or more runners), a category which includes the Grand National and other top grade jump races and most of the Cheltenham Festival contests.

The starts for these races are subjected to:

A) a preliminary (the Rolling Maul), which is guaranteed to cause stress, discomfort and danger to horses and riders, and

B) a processional formation which guarantees unfairness.

How did this state of affairs come about? Control over starting arrangements was entrusted to someone with no knowledge of the subject, and was left in the same hands when it became clear that a serious mistake had been made.

It took several years before that state of affairs came to an end – and now all is well? By no means: not a finger has been raised to seek out and remove the contamination which is the legacy of this particular aberration.

Yesterday I watched the start of the 4.20 at Uttoxeter. 18 runners. Ladbrokes’ coverage didn’t allow me to see much of the early manoeuvres, but with one final circle to complete the horses were relaxed and walking. When the 18 in six layers turned towards the starter they spread out sideways, an adequate level of equality developed, the pace changed from a walk to a gentle jog,but there was no sign of impatience by horses or riders and a perfect start was effected. Starters S. Upton and J. C. Bishop are to be congratulated.

However, if Brant Dunshea (who I understand is now in charge of Raceday Operations) were to talk to the starters, I am sure they would tell him that what sometimes works for 18 runners may well prove difficult with 28 and virtually impossible with 38. Because the system is flawed. I sometimes wonder if Raceday Operations bosses ever talks to the starters. In well-run operations that would be normal. There is no good reason why the lesson provided by Royal Ascot should not be applied to Uttoxeter and all NH racecourses, when big fields foregather.

 

AMATEUR STEWARDS

Let us revisit Salisbury Races at about 2.47 on 1^st July 1970. The Weyhill Stakes for 2-year-olds has been run and won by Silver Sheen, second Royal Topper, third Skyway (owned by the Duke of Norfolk.)

The Salisbury stewards reviewed the race and decided that the running of Skyway merited further examination. They suspected that it was not doing its best, as the rules required. Consequently they referred the matter to Portman Square, where such matters were adjudicated in that era.

Portman Square (an enquiry which in fact took place at Newmarket) agreed with the view of the Salisbury stewards, condign punishment was dished out to those deemed responsible and the Duke of Norfolk exploded. Witch hunt! Jealousy! Grave error by the Salisbury stewards!

Why do I disinter this ancient tale of woe?  Because the Salisbury stewards were Lords Margadale and Tryon, and C.L. “Larch” Loyd – three gentlemen whose knowledge of racing was extensive, whose involvement in the sport was lifelong and constructive, and who certainly weren’t into stewarding for the money.

So far our research has not come up with the name of a Stewards’ Secretary or Stipendiary Steward (professional  advisors) participating in the Salisbury ruminations. It doesn’t really matter: the decision to put the Duke of Norfolk’s runner on the carpet was made by independent  adjudicators  “without fear or favour”, and it is fair to suggest that 99 out of 100 professional stewards, in that situation,  would have decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

Something for the BHA to think about before they remove Amateur Stewards from their justice system (a change recommended by an ex-employee whose involvement with the complexities of British Racing over a number of years produced more problems than it solved, some of which are going to bedevil the sport until positive steps are taken to address them.)

Best wishes,

DONEC