RAVES & RANTS OF 2011

Saturday 17th December: The jockeys have a 3% pay rise agreed by the ROA and the PJA. I cannot ever remember being consulted about the annual pay rise.
The latest corruption trial reached its final stages this week with plenty of stern punishments meted out and the usual assessment of why and how it all could possibly have happened. Much comment is made of the fact that more money can be made in the lower echelons of our sport by losing rather than winning. This is the toxic combination of low prize money and the dastardly betting exchanges. Low prize money - it matters!

Sunday 20th November: There has been a shortage of raving and ranting! The whip debate has not been far from headlines since the new rules were announced on October 10th, shortly before the inaugural Champions' Day. I am sure everyone in racing has followed the ebbs and flows of the arguments since then. Here is my take on it in the form of a letter to the the 'Racing Post':-

As far as I can ascertain the BHA review into the use of the whip was an extensive and well researched project. The implementation of the new rules with particular reference to the ill-judged timing, the stringent penalties and the lack of stewards' discretion have caused the industry huge problems and poor press. A resolution, as we can see, is being sought by all parties involved. However, what galls me to a large extent is racing's constant pandering to welfare bodies and particularly the RSPCA. It has been established over recent weeks that no-one wants to see horses abused. Thoroughbreds are produced to race and are, for the most part, incredibly well looked after. They are the oil of a large industry and when they compete they must be given every reasonable chance to fulfil their potential for all concerned. This includes use of the whip, I would argue, for both safety and motivational reasons. There has been much focus on the implement itself as part of the debate with the sophisticated air-cushioned model used by jockeys being applied to human guinea pigs without squeals of pain. So why are we still so worried about public perception? The RSPCA is now expressing its 'disappointment' at the latest whip changes maintaining the ‘view that horse welfare has to come first'. I have been directly involved with the RSPCA on 2 occasions once with a badly injured greyhound found beside a busy road and once with 12 neglected thoroughbreds. The latter became a well-documented case and, I believe, changed the dynamic between the RSPCA and the racing authorities. On the back of these eye-opening experiences which were dealt with in what I consider to be a less than satisfactory manner, the welfare body’s continued sanctimonious intervention in the whip debate is, in my opinion, beyond their remit. I feel racing is wrongly allowing itself to be manipulated. It is high time to stick up for ourselves.

Tuesday 30th August: An academic exercise post Bank Holiday Monday. Compare and contrast the efforts of the Cartmel and Chepstow executives in their attempts to provide reasonable prize money. Cartmel excellent. Chepstow dismal. The former, despite receiving reduced support from the Levy Board secured laudable sponsorship for all its races and came out offering connections £15000 more than Chepstow, a course in receipt of the full Levy Board basic daily rate payment. As suppliers we REALLY SHOULD NOT SUPPORT courses that refuse to offer us what we have quite reasonably requested. Today Epsom has opened its doors free to the public and is rewarding runners with very generous prize money. Wolverhampton struggles to meet tariff in 4 of its 7 contests and falls below in the other three.

Sunday 31st July: If a jockey fails to weigh in after winning a race he is disqualified. He has failed to fulfil his professional duty and is therefore rightly penalised. If a cricketer fails to ascertain whether the ball he has hit has crossed the boundary before striding off for his cuppa and is run out in accordance with the laws of the game he should take his punishment for his unprofessional conduct. You dropped a clanger, Bell you should have taken the consequences.

Monday 25th July: Saturday's King George at Ascot brought the wrong kind of drama to the racecourse and the demise of Rewilding was a sad outcome to a fine race. Interestingly, especially from a punter's point of view, two of the trainers involved in the race may be construed as misleading the betting public. The eventual winner, Nathaniel, almost missed being entered due to what might have been a tricky situation with a pricked foot. Such injuries, even if treated properly at the time, may become infected and prevent a horse from competing. Matt Chapman on the At The Races Sunday Forum pointed to the Godolphin website where the tactics for the race were discussed at some length, intimating that Debussy would be ensuring a good even pace for the ill-fated Rewilding. In the event these tactics were not employed.

Monday 11th July: Last Saturday afternoon's racing was the equivalent of sitting at a table of all one's favourite desserts and being asked to consume them one after the other, appreciate them for their individual excellence and then remember them fondly afterwards.

Tuesday 5th July: It was billed all week as the clash of the Titans, the big boys, the heavyweights. There was plenty of media coverage, interviews, column inches. And there was trash talk. The protagonists? So You Think and Workforce, the might of the Southern Hemisphere and now Coolmore versus the Epsom Derby and Arc Winner of 2010? Coolmore versus Khaled Abdullah, O'Brien versus Stoute or even Heffernan versus Moore? Don't be silly. It was of course Haye versus Klitschko. Not that much of a match either, was it? The former dwarfed in height and weight by his rival and forced to dance to defeat with a broken toe. Racing's clash had a deal more depth. Two well-matched top-class opponents heading a small but intriguing field, which included the dual Oaks-winning, globetrotting filly Snow Fairy. Plenty to discuss in the days leading up to the race what with So You Think going down at Ascot and Workforce's Sandown re-appearance not to everyone's liking. Tactics too could be chucked about with Confront in as a pacemaker for the Stoute team. And the race itself was a little gem (unlike the damp squib of a boxing match) with Workforce taking up the running looking as if he might just last home, while Confront briefly managed to stall So You Think's victorious surge. Why didn't Racing For Change seize the forelock of opportunity (see below) and promote our very own clash of the Titans in the days that led up to it? All they managed to do was prevent the parade before the race by holding up proceedings, each jockey standing beside a lollipop bearing his name and details before posing embarrassedly with his fellow riders for a group photo. No time left  for the horses (the real stars) to show themselves in front of the stands (a condition of Group One races) before engaging in a battle that would  have upheld the hype it merited and certainly eclipsed anything served up by the two sluggers in the boxing ring.

Thursday 16th June: Opportunity, Edmund Spenser told us, is like a hag with only a forelock. You must grasp it before it passes. Yesterday in the Group 1 Princes's of Wales Stakes top jockey Frankie Dettori was stood down for 9 days for excessive use of the whip on Godolphin's winning horse Rewilding.  He hit the horse 24 times in the final 2 furlongs. The horse kept the race, despite the jockey breaking the guidelines on use of the whip. Had racing wanted to show it means business, the horse should have been disqualified. What better stage to demonstrate our desire to bring jockeys, who flout whip laws, into line? It's too easy to take a fine or a ban in order to ensure that a vitally important race is won. 

Tuesday 7th June: Mention must be made of racing's capitulation in the battle for the Tote. For as long as I have followed the tortuous tale of the Tote's future, those leading us have asserted that we must NOT let it fall into the hands of a bookmaker. So, we've let it fall into the hands of Fred Done - a bookmaker.

Monday 30th May: Jockey Richard Hughes has a Saturday feature in the 'Racing Post' and some of his thoughts are worth repeating. He criticises clerks of the course for issuing faulty going descriptions, arguing that it does no-one any good. Connections turn up with horses and often run them on ground that does not match the official going. Punters are misled both on the day and then when they try and interpret future form. He also decries overwatering which often renders ground unsafe where 'proper' fast ground is preferable. He also touches on the matter of corruption that is back in the news pointing out that poor, underfunded racing will tempt the unscrupulous to make their money in ways other than by always trying to win. Oh the evils of the betting exchanges!

Saturday 14th May: There is a note in today's 'Racing Post' outlining the Horsemen's Group's intention to review the fixture and race-planning programming. The Group has appointed a committee for this purpose which includes representatives from racing's stakeholders. This must be construed as a good thing and we await the reaction of the BHA race-planning department to any recommendations put forward.
A less good thing is the continuing support of owners, trainers and indeed jockeys for below tariff races. Yesterday Frankie Dettori made a stand by declining to ride in a non-tariff race for which he had been booked and Mick Channon withdrew 2 of his runners for the same reason. Both men argued that it is for the good of the racing industry as a whole. However, there are still too many unprepared to put their heads above the parapet including the current president of the National Trainers' Federation and others who have declared their support yet run their horses anyway. There is a whiff of hypocrisy.

Thursday 5th May: It is interesting to read that there is legislation being put before the House in America in an attempt to ban raceday drug usage in the USA. An Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to eliminate perform-enhancing substances for a variety of compelling reasons from their adverse affect on commerce to the dangers to the horses and indeed the jockeys who ride them. This is to be applauded and would bring North America in line with our laws and those of the majority of the main racing nations in the world. In a letter signed by several influential personalities in the American thoroughbred racing and breeding industry, it is strenuously argued that it is NOT  in the interest of the horse itself to race it on medication. This resonates with a recent case here in the UK in which a horse was found to be racing on anti-bleeding medication, contrary to our rules. The guilty party and others argued that it was only fair on the horse to use the drug to prevent distress to the animal. I would argue that the horse should not be raced if it cannot compete without the assistance of banned substances. This seems to be the general tenor of the American legislation.

Sunday 1st May: Frankel. What a horse and what a privilege to watch him perform.

Thursday 21st April: 'Speak roughly to your little boy and beat him when he sneezes....' said the Duchess in 'Alice in Wonderland' to the baby pig. She felt corporal admonishment a necessity and it is such reprimand that is under scrutiny once again with the use of the whip in horseracing. Riding in races without a whip is, in my opinion, an absurdity. The use of the whip for correction is necessary on many occasions and without it I'm sure the sport would be more dangerous. The controversy is more when the stick is used for coercion, or possibly when overused for coercion. We require a horse to run to its potential but do not require it to be subjected to excessive force. Of course we need to be sure that we are comfortable with the limits we set and once set, we need to apply sanctions to those who transgress. At present, jockeys will take a ban for transgression if the rewards for winning outweigh the punishment. The most effective way of persuading them that it is unwise to break the rules is by removing the aforementioned rewards by disqualifying the horse as well as punishing the rider. Take away the carrot and you won't need the stick.

Tuesday 12th April: A couple of random thoughts with a tenuous link to racing. Racing for Change claims it has succeeded in making our sport so much more accessible to the general public by printing the full names of trainers and jockeys in racecards. No more initials to confuse the world. I followed the Masters golf over the weekend and didn't feel particularly disadvantaged by watching a participant by the name of KJ Choi and the fact that JK Rowling has brought Harry Potter and his adventures to us has not diminished my enjoyment of the books.
And then there's Wayne Rooney and his recent foul-mouthed message to the tv cameras. Those that excuse him argue that swearing is endemic in football and we all need to grow up and accept the man's 'passion'. In no sport is swearing more endemic than in racing, I'm sure, but would you excuse Frankie Dettori if he flew off a Group One winner and immediately proceeded to blast invective down the nearest camera?

Monday 11th April: That two runner below tariff race at Lingfield on Saturday (see below). Well, one trainer ran his horse because it is going to the sales and a win would do nicely as a preparation for that and the other trainer ran his horse to ready it for another race here at Newmarket this week. The former was beaten and the latter wasn't entered here due to 'an oversight'.

Friday 8th April: We can certainly rave about the warm, sunny, dry weather these past few days and it looks set fair for the weekend. The 'Newmarket Journal's' weather expert tells us in this week's issue that March has been the driest on record here with a total rainfall of 4mm. (We had a spot of rain in April just as I was firing up the Mothers' Day barbecue last Sunday! God was having a laugh at my expense but the splash of rain was soon followed by a dazzling rainbow) Unbelievable, then, that the ground for the Craven Meeting is still being given as good (going stick reading mysteriously not available) with good to firm places. The Craven Stakes has today been re-opened as there have been insufficient entries. Could there be a connection here?
On the tariff front there has been notable progress with more courses coming into line. Lingfield (Arena Leisure) should feel a little embarrassed with 2 of its Saturday races hugely under tariff and attracting 2 and 4 runners. Shame on the trainers who have chosen to contest them. They indeed fall into the pig, duck and cat category. (See below)

Monday 4th April: Still we muse over these blasted tariffs and wonder whether right or wrong is being done! Pitiful prize money at Folkestone today still attracted runners from stables and owners who claim to back the concept. Is it a case of 'do as I say' and not 'do as I do'? If increases come along how do those who haven't supported the tariffs justify taking the extra money? It puts me in mind of the old tale of the Little Red Hen!

In the old folk tale, the Little Red Hen finds a grain of corn and asks the pig, duck and cat to help her plant it, then harvest, thresh, mill and bake it into bread. None volunteer. Yet when she enquires as to whether they would like to share the end product they are only too ready to rally round. So to tariffs. Might we draw a parallel here? Some seem willing to stick firmly to the pledge of choosing not to support non-tariff races whilst others persist in running in them and they, like the animals in the story above, will be quite content to benefit from the sacrifice of those who have stayed true to their principles.

Monday 28th March: Tariffs are becoming a tangled web as the flat season beckons. Today the Horsemen's Group suspended the tariff for Class 1 races (having over the weekend vowed to stand firm on all fronts). Consternation! There is method in the madness, however, as we must remember that there is more than prize money at stake in black type contests. They are the  future indicators in breeders' pedigrees and therefore the overwhelming temptation to run in them may well outweigh the desire to adhere to the tariff. It is logical to suspend the tariff to avoid the hypocrisy but the late 'realignment' certainly doesn't reflect well on the Horsemen. In the meantime, Northern Racecourses have this afternoon announced a £1.5 million injection of prize money funds. Something is happening......somehow. Nil desperandum.

Thursday 24th March: Here's a conundrum. Tariffs for the flat start on April 2nd and we already have a potential hitch. The admirable  'Racing Post' bonus scheme which is largely funded by vendors and owners, offers £10000 bonuses to winning horses enrolled in the scheme in a plethora of races. However, some of these races will be offered with below tariff prize money. What to do? Steadfastly refuse to race your horse where it has the opportunity of winning a generous bonus? Lobby the racecourses to meet the tariff for these races? Persuade those operating the scheme to remove the bonus races from courses that will not meet the tariff? We need to 'watch that space' and hope that racecourses don't see the bonus as a handy 'top-up' for meagre prize money.
Meanwhile, and encouragingly, the Maktoums and a normally apolitical Richard Hannon appear to be putting their considerable force behind the tariffs underlining the fact that the industry as a whole is affected by low prize money income.

Friday 18th March: Four days of top top class National Hunt racing draw to a close and leave behind them a myriad of stories, some glorious and some hard-luck. The elation experienced by those who win is quietly balanced by the disappointment of those who did not and leads me to ponder upon the 'hypes and lows' of this game we play. The lead up to such a racing festival stretches back almost to the close of the preceding one. Potential stars are pinpointed as the season progresses and suddenly horse, jockey, trainer, owner, lad and sundry others are the focal point of every section of the media. Hype, hyper, hypest. Finally those few vital minutes, the culmination of all the attention, the newspaper articles, the interviews, the visits from the various tv channels, those few minutes arrive and are gone. The horse wins - the trainer, the jockey, the horse itself attain hero status. The horse doesn't win - suddenly it's a donkey, the jockey couldn't ride a pushbike and as for the trainer he can't train the proverbial ivy up a wall. My point is: spare a moment for those you have elevated so high, for the abyss into which they all, unjustly, tumble is dark and deep.

Monday 14th March:Cheltenham kicks off tomorrow without Champion Hurdle favourite Binocular in somewhat controversial circumstances connected with a prohibited substance that hadn't cleared the horse's system. The trainer and the BHA knew that there was doubt over participation as early as last Thursday, yet the the public knew nothing until Sunday morning. This must surely raise questions.
Meanwhile there appears to have been some non-communication between the Horsemen's Group and the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association on the subject of tariffs with a failure by the latter, as  a group, to back the tariffs. It isn't fully clear why they haven't signed the charter but seem worried, among other things, about the down-grading of pattern races if racecourses struggle to finance meetings. The need for all constituents to stand firmly together is, in my view, the only way to succeed in securing adequate funding. Trainer Jim Boyle has expressed such an opinion publicly in today's press, vowing to side-step courses that offer poor prize money. 'It's time to take a stance', he quite rightly says.
And further on from all this, we are looking, in time, at a radical restructuring of the British Racing industry with the Horsemen's Group and a Racecourse Group becoming the key players. The BHA would be left to make and administer the rules plus ensure 'quality control' of the product.

Wednesday 9th March: We managed to persuade the jockeys that it really wasn't a good idea to take half riding fees for non-runners but we are still kindly granting them a 2.4% pay rise, even in these straitened times. The betting industry, on the other hand, appears to show no kindness to the racing world with the news that Betfair is to go offshore and operate with a Gibraltar licence as of today.
Two slightly more cheerful matters to highlight:  the 'stand alone' 'Racing Post' bloodstock website which is definitely worth a look and the £1.4 million pound jackpot winner who scooped the fortune on a £2 ticket at Exeter yesterday.

Thursday 3rd March: I had wicked thoughts yesterday as we stood in the freezing cold on the unloading ramps at Dalham Hall Stud with MELTING BOB, waiting to be ushered into the covering barn for her enforced appointment with Shirocco. Why not AI? Yes, indeed, why not allow Artificial Insemination into the world of breeding thoroughbreds? I pause as I await to be struck down for uttering such blasphemy. You see, up there at Dalham Hall, more so than anywhere else I've been to cover a mare, it is so clinical, so clean, so tidy, so conveyor-belt. So why not cut out the rest of the hassle as well? You drive into the stud past pristine paddocks, surrounded by perfect railings. (No horses in them....that helps). Follow the signage (you have to have signage these days) to the ramps. Masses of ramps, numbered and one for every shape and size of horsebox. Not a speck of dirt, dust, muck. No hint of a horse anywhere to be seen. Then it's administration time. Papers are taken from you. More boxes park on appropriate ramps. More administration. My poor, cold maiden mare stands and waits and so do we. Finally, she is collected and taken through the identification area. Loads of people, no horses. One little girl checks the markings. One little girl attempts to scan her microchip and fails. (No job in Tescos for her). Then it's into the preparation room. Tail bandage on, covering boots on hind feet, twitch on nose. With a man on each side she is taken into the covering barn as I stand in the gallery above (bar stool to sit on, brochures to peruse). A small grey teaser (yes at last, an equine) arrives and does his bit, very competently before being moved into covering barn number 2 to perform the same ritual. Aha! There is a snort and a grunt as the stallion finally enters. Even now, all is not straightforward as I learn that this one is a slow-coverer and my poor old mare, now sporting an ear twitch to match the one on the nose, will have to wait for the old boy to have three goes before the job is done. Finally, finally, finally she and I escape back through a maze of corridors and fences to that souless spot on number 1 loading ramp, into the box and back out into the real world which is a little messy but infinitely preferable, with that thought still in my head. If we really want to sanitise the act of covering to such an extent why not cut out all that kerfuffle, take one of those straws of semen and be done with it because surely that is no more artificial than what I had just witnessed!

Tuesday 22nd February: There was a slightly tantalising article in the 'Racing Post' yesterday suggesting that three trainers will no longer be allowed to self-certify their non-runners, having abused the system. Who these 3 might be, we do not know. I am unsure as to how and why the BHA have alighted upon the trio. Self-certification was brought in to work alongside the 48 hour declaration system when there was a rightful outcry by trainers who, with an extra 24 hours for something to go awry with their runner, were unhappy at having to call in and remunerate vets to produce certificates for non-runners. We will watch the situation with interest.

Friday 18th February: The government in the guise of Jeremy Hunt has announced its determination of the 50th Levy with what looks like, on the face of it, a slightly improved deal for racing. We will see if the bookmakers manage to wriggle out passing over the extra cash. Over the last few days I have been surprised by the way the bookmakers are trying to portray racehorse owners, presumably to nullify our demands for a reasonable level of prize money. William Hill, leading up to the Levy determination, sent out a briefing note suggesting it will only be wealthy financiers and the Jockey Club who will benefit from a rise in the levy. More frustratingly, MP Philip Davies, betting industry advocate, when tackled by racehorse owner Mike Grace about the affect low prize money is having on the small owner, shows no understanding of how our industry functions, seeing ownership purely as a hobby with prize money virtually irrelevant. Click here for a direct link to the e mail correspondence published on the ROA website.

Wednesday 16th February: Oh dear! There seem to be plenty of entries at 'below tariff' Wetherby next Tuesday although there are 2 re-opened races to hearten us just a smidgen. More alarmingly, trainers seem unabashed by running their horses at the rescheduled Newbury meeting this coming Friday. The original meeting was woefully below tariff and this one is even more financially depleted. The apparent hypocrisy of some trainers is highlighted very clearly by Julian Muscat in an article in today's 'Racing Post'. We have to agree with him.

Tuesday 15th February: Tomorrow sees jumping entries for Wetherby and Taunton. The former offers every single race under tariff including one that is £3720 short of the recommended amount. The latter, by contrast, has every race above tariff. There are whispers that the Northern track will be shunned whilst its rival will be promoted. We watch with interest.

Saturday 12th February: An unprecedented day of drama at Newbury where two horses lost their lives in the parade ring, possibly through electrocution. The more mischievous might say they were struck down by the god of tariffs, angered at the staging of the Aon Chase so far below the recommended tariff level. Whatever the cause of their tragic and dramatic passing, I firmly believe someone in the higher echelons of racing PR might have attempted to prevent the rolling news reports showing again and again the distressed horses as the incident occurred followed by the sorry pictures of the tarpaulin-covered carcasses in the ring in the aftermath. I found it disturbing and distressing. What damage it might do to the image of racing in the eyes of the general public we can only guess.

Wednesday 9th February: Over at the council offices in Mildenhall trainers were revolting. A noteworthy contingent of Newmarket handlers plus representatives from the stud industry, Tattersalls, vets and bloodstock agents came together to attend a planning meeting. Planning permission for the development of Hatchfield Farm had been refused last year. Now, it seems, the council officers are trying to strong-arm our local councillors into making an almighty u turn. The latter, I am delighted to say, were not for turning and stood firm, with a little help from bats (the flying type, not those of the baseball variety)! It was fascinating to see local democracy in action and heartening to see a will to protect a unique and historic town.
Meanwhile it appears that Jockey Club Racecourses may be coming into line over the tariffs issue with a press release divulging added funds for prize money. Reasons to be a little bit cheerful.

Monday 7th February: First day of tariffs. Ayr was washed away so they were spared the worry! At Lingfield four of the 6 races were operated below tariff. Nick Gifford won one of the 2 races above tariff and commented on the 'Racing Post' website that 'he would have felt uncomfortable having runners in races below the minimum tariff level'. Meanwhile, in the printed pages of the same publication jump jockey Robert Thornton confirmed that he would not take outside rides in races that did not meet the required tariff. All quite encouraging in what will be a protracted battle. The racecourses are still pleading poverty. What is slightly concerning is their continued assertion that the Horsemen's Group did not consult adequately with them before the imposition of the tariffs. If this is the case and more face to face negotiation is necessary, maybe they should all reconvene round the table pretty sharpish.
Meanwhile, Newmarket may well have a battle of a different kind on the agenda as plans to develop the Lord Derby-owned Hatchfield Farm area on the other side of town from us continue to be debated. The training and breeding fraternity are deeply opposed to such development but Forest Heath District Council continue to try and push planning agreement through. A meeting at the council offices in Mildenhall on Wednesday will see a strong and vocal opposition from the racing industry. Watch this space.

Sunday 6th February: The first races to which the tariffs apply are run tomorrow. Lingfield has 53 declared runners, compared to 91 last year. That is 53 too many, but it's an indication of intent. Woe betide anyone who runs and then complains about the prize money! As for next weekend (entries made tomorrow), over the 2 days prize money offered by Ayr, Newbury and Warwick on Saturday and Exeter and Hereford on Sunday amounts to £120,684 below recommended levels.  Two of Newbury's top races are £19,138 shy of the mark and Warwick offers one that is £29,138 short. There will, unfortunately, be entries because these types of races are stepping stones to Cheltenham. If there were none, however, the racecourses would have to take action sooner rather than later. In yesterday's press, the Lingfield management declared its inability to fund Group, Listed  and class 2 or 3 events after April 2nd 2011 to tariff requirements. 'If they can't afford them, they can't have them', has to be the logical response.

Friday 4th February: Those entering horses tomorrow to race at Bangor next Friday will discover that the card is a dismal £8821 below the required prize money tariff. Both Musselburgh and Kempton are offering below tariff races too.

Wednesday 2nd February: The general support for tariffs seems to be holding but there are, I feel, too many lame excuses from those who have entered horses in 'below tariff' races. Ayr had plenty of entries and the Northern trainers, having had so many abandonments, feel the need to race their horses. Lingfield saw no entries from the 'big trainers'. Some supporters, when asked by the press why they chose to enter their horses, suggested that the bigger trainers had the luxury of missing out on opportunities. I don't buy that. Concerted support will see movement by courses for sure. Market Rasen (entries today) and Ludlow (entries tomorrow) have added prize money to bring some of their races into line with the tariffs. Why should some of the training fraternity profit from the sacrifices of others? Will they refuse extra prize money extracted from racecourses by those who are 'toeing the tariff line'? Perhaps they can donate to worthy causes cash they win in races with below tariff prize funds and therefore attracting a  less competitive entry?

Tuesday 1st February: Quite a few entries in those 'below tariff' races. That's worrying, although it seems that those trainers who have pledged to avoid them have indeed done so. All of next Tuesday's card at Market Rasen is below tariff as are 3 races at Sedgefield. We watch with interest and apprehension as entries are made for those meetings tomorrow. The sale of the Tote also causes a degree of anxiety. Over the past 4 years or so racing has huffed and puffed about keeping the Tote for itself and more importantly the pool betting side of the business. Now we seem to be contenting ourselves with taking a slice of the profit when it is sold to someone else. Reading back over various articles I have hoarded, I fear we won't be receiving too much.  Howard Wright in the 'Racing Post' in 2008 when it was mooted back then that the government pledged to 'give 50 per cent of proceeds to racing' goes on to tell us that 'racing(...)will receive half of the net proceeds, not 50% of the gross as sought by the BHA, and that sum must go into a ring-fenced fund that should not be used for commercial purposes, otherwise European state-aid issues could be raised.
Current thinking among government officials is understood to be that prize-money, for instance, which they say racecourses can use to promote competition for runners, could constitute a commercial mechanism, and therefore would fall outside the scope of the sales proceeds'.
So if that continues to hold true and pensions, deficits and professional fees all have to come out of the proceeds of the sale there is not a huge amount left to play with and we are being constrained as to what we can do with it anyway.
Rather confusingly, to boot, the 2008 headline reads, 'More bad news for racing over Tote sale - Government will pass on only half of the net - not gross - proceeds'. Today's (on what seems fundamentally the same deal) declares, 'Racing to get half of profits from Tote sale - Boost for sport as coalition government issues pledge.'

Monday 31st January: Various things....It will be interesting to see how many National Hunt trainers enter horses for 'below tariff' races tomorrow. The recommended tariffs take effect from next Monday, February 7th. These are the 6 races in the Calendar that do not offer the recommended level:
 

Friday 28th January: A couple of matters about which we should rave rather than rant. Firstly the ROA and PJA have dropped the preposterous idea of paying jockeys half fees for non-runners. A definite victory for common sense. Secondly, we sent the trainer to the Newmarket Trainers' Federation AGM today mainly because the subject of prize money tariffs was on the agenda. It seems that those who attended the meeting were robustly in favour of adhering to the tariffs. Rupert Arnold, the Chief Executive of the National Trainers' Federation, was present to add weight to the campaign. He asserted that racecourses are indeed worried by the proposed 'refusal to support' (the word 'boycott' is not to be used) races that offer below tariff prize money. He cited one small independent jumping racecourse, Taunton, who has declared its intention to abide by the tariffs and promised the NTF's full support for its fixtures. Now is, without doubt, the time to stand firm on this issue. Coincidentally, as a member the ROA, I today received a letter asking me to support the tariff. I affirmed my support.

Wednesday 26th January: Apparently, the Racecourse Association Chairman, Ian Barlow sent an e mail letter to all trainers and owners to outline the financial plight of British Racecourses and to explain why we have to accept dwindling prize money in order to allow them to continue to run their businesses. This is in spite of the fact that every year it costs more and more to keep a horse in training. Possibly we should write to our feed, hay and bedding suppliers, vet and farrier and tell them we are going to pay them less so we can stay in business. For some reason Mr Barlow's letter reached neither the trainer nor the trainer's wife (an owner) here at Red House Stables. I wonder how many other supposed recipients it failed to reach. Fortuitously, the missive has been forwarded to us by one of our owners and it arrived the day Bill O'Gorman sent a pithy note to the 'Racing Post' that suggests in no uncertain terms that those courses that can't make a go of it should cease to be. I do hope Mr Barlow had sight of it!

Monday 24th January: The subject of just reward for racing our horses is beginning to elicit some interesting correspondence in the trade press. Sunday's 'Racing Post' featured a well-argued case by Norman Gundill, managing director of Pontefract racecourse. He tells us that his first call in never prize-money but rather the cost of putting on the race meeting itself. I feel that if he cannot afford to put on a meeting with adequate prize money, that meeting should not go ahead. He does make the point that there was not, in his opinion, enough communication between racecourses and the Horsemen's Group before the tariffs were introduced. If this is so, it can only be seen as counter-productive. Mr Gundill's letter is followed by one from Jon Hughes, 'avid racehorse owner..who leads a management consultancy specialising in commercial negotiation'. He refutes the idea that all factions of racing can come together to solve its ills in a harmonious and conciliatory manner. 'Racing' he argues in his own particular jargon, 'is a big industry with a number of aggressive and highly competitive organisations seeking to maximise shareholder value. They are called bookmakers and racecourses'. And there's the rub. If we do not stand up to these organisations they will continue to walk all over us with their great, big clod-hopping boots as they have done forever! Mr Hughes exhorts owners and trainers to 'show a belated unanimity in backing the Horsemen's Group and others who are fighting their cause', a fight he describes as potentially 'bruising'. Bring them on, say I! One lady who won't be fighting the cause is another devoted owner and breeder of racehorses. Irene Clifford writes in today's 'Racing Post' that she feels she can no longer afford to subsidise the industry to the tune of £20000 a year and, with regret, must sever her links with racing and breeding.

Friday 21st January: Yesterday saw a fairly comprehensive debate in the House of Commons on the future funding of racing. Reading today's reports in the 'Racing Post' it seems that the matter is fairly well understood by those who were involved. Yet for how long have we been hearing such words as the levy is 'outdated, not fit for purpose, broken, needs replacing by a commercial system of funding'? The politicians are desperate to extricate themselves from the annual spat between racing and bookmakers over funding but no replacement of any worth has been found. There were rumblings of something innovative yesterday, however, when our local West Suffolk MP Matthew Hancock mooted the idea of a 'racing right' whereby the product has 'property rights' that can be bought by those who want to use them namely, in the first instance, the bookmakers. It has crossed my mind that as owners we should view our horses in that way. We provide the entertainment to the courses, the sporting action to the media, the betting fodder for the bookmakers, the advertising opportunities for stallion owners yet generally gain very little in return. Indeed, we are very undemanding despite spending untold sums of money purchasing and maintaining the very thing that  provides them with their revenue.  Owners who declare that it is their hobby and they don't expect to make money from it are undermining the whole industry for it cannot survive in any meaningful way without adequate funding. The knock on effect of an underfunded racing industry will resonate through the ranks of trainers, their staff and suppliers and on to the breeders, auctioneers and any other associated businesses. What's more, and this was pointed out in the above debate, an underfunded racing industry threatens integrity and opens the door to the temptation of corruption when individuals can gain much more through dishonest means than the pitiful amounts offered to the honest operator.

Wednesday 19th January:  The Horsemen's recommended tariffs....a cursory glance through today's cards at Newcastle and Newbury over jumps and Lingfield and Kempton on the level shows a worrying amount of support for races that offer money below the recommended limit. Granted, the flat tariffs are not effective until April 2nd but a decline in support even now would be encouraging. Originally, we were informed that the jumping tariffs were immediately effective as of publication last week. Newcastle's card today had no race offering prize money above the limit and Newbury, likewise, had several below. What is also extremely disappointing is the number of individuals amongst the ranks of trainers, jockeys and owners (many of whom were signatories to a letter in the 'Racing Post' on Sunday demanding support for the tariffs) still competing for these paltry amounts. That said,  perhaps an e mail from the National Trainers' Federation this evening exhorting jumps trainers to boycott low prize-money races as of February 7th will see a concerted campaign unfold. We certainly need the 'big boys' both on the flat and over jumps to lead the way.

Tuesday 18th January: The great American racemare Zenyatta was crowned their horse of the year yesterday. Defeated in only one of her 20 starts, and then only by a whisker, she captured the hearts and imaginations of many a racing fan with her late and daring lunges for victory. Breeders' Cup nights here at Red House Stables are eagerly anticipated with the feast of racing accompanied by an edible feast of all things decadent. This year we sampled for the first time a chocolate cake that could only be described as 'un-be-liev-able'. It has taken on the name 'Zenyatta Cake' and through that tenuous link I hereby share the recipe with you:

This looks stunning topped with berries and a light dusting of icing sugar. It tastes delicious when made the day before, which means you can avoid last minute panics. SERVES  10-12
For the base:
80g unsalted butter , plus extra for greasing
60g dark chocolate (70-85% cocoa solids)
225 g digestive biscuits

For the filling:
180g unsalted butter
180g (70% cocoa solids) broken into pieces
4 medium free-range eggs
180g dark muscovado sugar
180g double cream
a few handfuls of fresh berries to top
icing sugar to dust
creme fraiche to serve

Heat the oven to 180C/Gas Mark 4. For the base, melt the butter and chocolate in a heatproof bowl set over a pan of barely simmering water, making sure the bowl doesn't touch the water. Stir until fully combined. Crush the biscuits (can use a blender) into fine crumbs and add to the melted mixture. Grease the bottom and sides of a loose-based 23cm tin. Spoon the mixture into the tin, press down and leave to chill for half an hour in the fridge.
Meanwhile, melt and combine the butter and dark chocolate for the filling in the same way, then leave to cool. Put the eggs, sugar and cream in the blender and mix together. Once the chocolate mixture has cooled (otherwise there is a risk of curdling), add it to the blender and whizz together, making sure all the sugar is mixed in.
Remove the base from the fridge and pour the filling on top. Put in the oven and bake for 45 minutes until firm. The filling will rise as it cooks, but, once removed, will shrink again slightly.
Leave to cool and then top with berries and dust with icing sugar. Serve with a generous helping of creme fraiche.

Monday 17th January: Several interesting medical conditions have been in the horseracing news over the last few days. Monet's Garden, a tip top staying chaser, has been fighting a persistent and pernicious foot infection that has threatened to draw his life to a premature close. It may well have been a similar problem to the one that dogged our very own Merseyside Man when he was a 9 year old. On several occasions, the vet suggested that no more could be done for him. January 1st 2011 saw the old boy celebrate his 25th birthday so Monet's Garden may still have a bit of time ahead of him! Another of our old stagers, Herr Trigger, twice suffered from a fibrillating heart. One of Saturday's King George runners, The Nightingale, finished distressed after the race and this condition was diagnosed. Herr Trigger was treated, recovered and won races on both occasions. More grounds for optimism. As for Kauto Star, it is reported that he bled from the nose  after the race, having broken blood vessels in his lungs (technically known as EIPH). It is not unusual for a horse, not generally an habitual bleeder, to suffer in this way if it is slightly under the weather. This may be a possible explanation in Kauto Star's case and he may, therefore, return to his former glory later in the year. Three reasons to be cheerful on 'Blue Monday'.

Saturday 15th January: The postponed King George VIth Chase was run at Kempton this afternoon. Previewing the race of Radio 5 Live earlier in the day, racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght dismissed the idea that the race should have been run at Sandown over the festive period as 'nonsense'. The ultimate test for a staying chaser, in his opinion, was to show his mastery of both the undulating, stamina-sapping demands of Cheltenham on Gold Cup Day in March and the flat, fast track at Kempton for the King George. Sandown is too like the former. This way of assessing the sport seems contradictory to the mantra of Racing For Change whose interest in the horse is superseded by the desire to pull in crowds to watch an inferior product.
Trainer Nicky Henderson talks sense in the 'Racing Post' today on two fronts. Firstly he encourages owners and trainers to support the prize money tariffs and secondly he questions the logic of the agreement forged between the ROA (Racehorse Owners' Association) and PJA (Professional Jockeys' Association) whereby jockeys receive half their riding fee for a non-runner. He asks why owners should be penalised and also points out the absurdity of one situation where he had 2 runners in a race. One didn't run so he switched the jockey to the other. Should he be paid 1 and a half times?

Thursday 13th January: Unsurprisingly, the racecourses continue to maintain their inability to service the prize money tariffs.  If they want the product they need to pay the going rate. Many courses now have post-race music nights. Presumably the acts  turn up to perform only if they are paid what they request and not what the course offers. Why should it be any different for the equine performers? There are however, rather worryingly, hints that there hasn't been sufficient consultation between the Horsemen's Group and the courses about the tariffs and if that is so it is to be condemned.
Also unsurprisingly, there have been some lengthy bans for various individuals caught up with laying horses on betting exchanges. If it is possible to profit from a horse losing, then corruption will ensue. Betting exchanges cannot be good for the sport for this reason and for the fact that they are, at present,  not obliged to contribute to the levy although some do contribute voluntarily as they see fit.

Wednesday 12th January: Mixed response to the tariffs. There is support but some dissent. The latter is often contradictory with individuals criticising the poor levels of prize money whilst saying they feel coerced into running their horses nonetheless. If we stand as one and boycott races offering returns below the recommended level the racecourses will be forced to act.

Tuesday 11th January: This is indeed a significant day to start airing our thoughts as today the Horsemen's Group published proposed minimum tariffs for prize money. These tariffs are by no means generous but they set a limit below which we, as trainers and owners, should not be prepared to offer our horses to the racecourses and, for that matter, the bookmakers for their consumption and profit-making. Unless a unilateral stand is made to boycott such races we will once more be bullied into accepting increasingly derisory returns for our product. Whatever they say, racecourses need our business and have at their disposal multiple methods of raising money alongside revenue accrued from the levy and picture rights. Indeed, there are many courses that do just that, adding funds from the executive and sponsorship to present us with respectable prize money. The others need to use their imagination and energy to follow these examples rather than plead poverty.