Royal Ascot, to me, is practically perfect. It may not be your thing and I’m not sure it’s mine – the hat and fancy dress grow old very quickly, each day should only be six races and getting out is a nightmare.
But it’s simply the best of British: car park picnics, elegant fashion and Royals having a really good time.
So, with the biggest week of the year done and dusted, what’s the takeout?
I think decisions are being made to improve transparency but without consistency, the little things forgotten. We’re taking on big issues without even sorting the basics.
We entered Royal Ascot under the shadow of the Derby and a non-runner debacle, a chestnut hind foot that left Epsom reeling.
It was Ballydoyle in the spotlight again on day one of Royal Ascot. The stewards’ report read ‘an enquiry was held to consider whether C Soumillon, the rider of Puerto Rico, placed sixth, rode in a manner to benefit Gstaad’, which left the Belgian-born jockey with an eight-day fine for ‘riding his mount in such a way that intended to give an advantage to another horse from the same stable’.
Soumillon denied it, Aidan denied it. The court of ‘X’ passed judgement. Gosden made comment. O’Brien versus Gosden created a good front page for the Racing Post on Wednesday. Soumillon lodged an appeal, to be settled on Friday.
I’m not going to delve into the archives and provide examples of previous cases, both unobserved and reported. I haven’t got the time, quite frankly, and there are people with longer memories than me who can provide a better body of evidence. But it was an attempt by the British Horseracing Authority, rightly or wrong, to stamp down on the theory of team tactics. A bold statement of intent.
So tell me why, given a concerted effort for punter transparency and information, Legacy Link ran without her cross noseband in the Ribblesdale Stakes and there is no mention in the steward’s report?
A cross noseband aims to prevent a horse pulling by restricting their ability to open their mouth to evade the bit or cross their jaw. It’s probably not a gamechanger but given various in-running comments list ‘took keen hold’, it would have been proper and correct to provide the information that she ran without one.
It’s not the end of the world, but it’s an example of inconsistency. We can’t call out team tactics, then forget to mention that a short-priced favourite for a key race went down with a noseband on and came back without one.
Did it affect her chance?
“She lost the noseband in the stalls. It made no difference at all to how she ran,” says Thady Gosden, slightly surprised by the question.
I could stop writing at this point, screw up the proverbial paper and start again. My point has been made completely redundant. There are other options for this piece: a draw bias to talk about, O’Brien wins to count and a slightly questionable decision regarding a missing over-girth.
But do you know what? That’s transparency.
More from Sporting Life
- Free bets
- Racecards
- Fast results
- Full results and free video replays
- Horse racing news
- Horse racing tips
- Horse racing features
- Download our free iOS and Android app
- Football and other sports tips
- Podcasts and video content
Safer gambling
We are committed in our support of safer gambling. Recommended bets are advised to over-18s and we strongly encourage readers to wager only what they can afford to lose.
If you are concerned about your gambling, please call the National Gambling Helpline / GamCare on 0808 8020 133.
Further support and information can be found at begambleaware.org and gamblingtherapy.org.
