NICE ADDRESS, SHAME ABOUT THE RACE

The recent round of breeze-up sales has come to an end at the same time that changes to the conditions of the Windsor Castle Stakes have attracted so much comment. The soaring upper market at the former and the defence of the status quo of the latter are startling manifestation of the struggle for primacy between the business and the sport.

There has never been a justification for having a consolation heat for The Norfolk Stakes and it has gradually undermined the senior test by becoming a key card in a game of bluff between the principal racing stables. 

It is important to remember the original conception and justification for the pattern:

“The Turf Authorities must ensure that a series of races over the right distances, and at the right time of the year, are available to test the best horses of all ages, and they must attempt to ensure that the horses remain in training long enough and race often enough to be tested properly for constitution and soundness.”

Racing relies on the interest and support of the betting public for financing. It is essential that that is nurtured and developed, but the industry has neglected it shamefully. It can only be optimised if the horses are recognisable by their longevity and become familiar to racing fans. That is an immediate practical requirement, however unpalatable to those within the sport who have more specific partial interests.

From a professional point of view, we are the only large scale animal breeding business that deliberately selects inferior stock. The vast majority of winners of the Norfolk and Windsor Castle are afforded an opportunity to cover a three figure book of mares. They are usually rated around a stone below top horses from the classic generation who are exiled to foreign pastures, or National Hunt interests. They offer very little prospect of breeding anything more talented than another precocious juvenile at the rate of around one percent of foals. The overwhelming majority of the remainder are virtually worthless within eight months of purchase. I am quite sure that new owners are not appraised of this equation before being shepherded towards the yearling sales by trainers, agents and sales companies. 

The defence is specious. The claim that it is popular with small owners ignores the hordes who have had a brief flirtation and been alienated by the rapid disillusion. They are lost to the sport and likely to dissuade other potential newcomers.

The assertion that racing a horse at two results in a sounder and more durable horse is equally spurious. There is no doubt that training is beneficial and allows for remodelling, but there is a gulf between training and racing and using evidence of horses that race in subsequent seasons as gospel that a two years old career is beneficial ignores the great number of two years olds that never run at all having failed to cope with an early examination. This statistic just reveals tough horses that have survived the early examination and are predisposed to longevity. Indeed, the most important factor in preparing a two years old for an early season test is durability - very few horses win at Royal Ascot without a clear run of health through the preparation. 

The wastage rate of this production and their unsuitability for alternative uses can only be detrimental to the sport’s perception.

I do not believe there is any need for The Windsor Castle Stakes, but if it is to be retained, the attempt to attract horses that may return at future renewals of the meeting is laudable. Anything that persuades breeders and buyers to strive for constitution and soundness is desirable. More prescriptive conditions for a great many of the more important races would be a significant step in the right direction and I hope this initiative will be expanded. I am in favour of a condition universal to all Group One races: “for horses the progeny of stallions who did not retire to stud until their fourth year and did not have more than ninety nine registered foals in the relevant season.” That would spike the lawyers’ guns as there is no infringement of fair trade and it is the only practicable way to manage stallion books.

The breeze-up sales are also a consequence of the popular pedigree cross of the very rich and the very impatient. I have the greatest respect for those who earn a living by this most precarious profession and Norman Williamson’s record of producing classic winners from such a small intake is truly remarkable. Pinhookers at any stage, however, are not investing in the breed and their interest is strictly in the immediate future. When breeders are resolved to cater for the pinhooking market, rather than the eventual racing career, then we have a production line that is flawed at every station.

Since 2006, when Dutch Art won the only Norfolk victors to sire a Group One winner in England or Ireland are No Nay Never and Prince of Lir. The latter achieved the feat with the help of a mare by New Approach, interestingly one of only two stallions to sire three Royal juvenile winners in the same season. In the same period only Ardad has won the Windsor Castle and achieved the feat. Indeed on the overwhelming balance of evidence a win in one of these races should rule them out of stallion duties. Bearing this in mind an alternative approach would be to amalgamate the two races, increase the value to half a million and restrict the entry to geldings so that they can have no adverse effect on the gene pool. At least that would be a patent statement of its actual value to the sport and its future.