Min winning at Punchestown© Photo Healy Racing
Just because a line in the sand is invisible doesn’t mean people can’t recognise it, a tough reality to explain but a racing reality none the less. It’s a line the unrealistic believe shouldn’t exist at all since they expect every runner to be trying for its life every time. Given intangible factors such as human nature, and rather more tangible factors like the programme book, that’s pie-in-the-sky. What those with lower expectations resent is when the line gets crossed with impunity.
It’s the line between good old fashioned roguery and basically taking the piss, between an ‘easy’ and a blatant ‘no-try,’ and it is a distinction crossed so frequently these days that one shrewd punting acquaintance is mournfully going through a period of wondering whether or not to switch his gambling instincts elsewhere. Ask him to define the line and he can’t precisely, but asking him to pretend it doesn’t exist is impossible.
Neither he nor most anyone else expects to be spoon-fed perfection. Parsing down what happens in every race is a judgement call and the test of that judgement is in the bottom line. And usually there’s a logic behind all of it, either in getting one handicapped, or having a pipe-opener ahead of a decent race, one disappointing, or simply not being good enough: and a major part of it is trying to tease out the human logic behind the horse’s performance.
What’s getting on many people’s goats however is the line being so regularly stomped over. The reasons for that are multiple and complex but surely ultimately come down to the lack of a fear factor, the manifestation of which is in those who reckon it ever more worthwhile to step over the line from ‘easy’ to basically ‘taking the mickey’ without getting pulled on it.
The reasons for that are multiple and complex too and occupy pretty old ground for this space but one immediate outcome of a line getting increasingly scuffed through misuse is the prospect of one more disillusioned punter looking elsewhere for their betting kicks. And if you think all of this is desperately vague and theoretical, you’re as correct as any solicitor would be alarmed were it any other way.
Maybe it’s naive to think companies — even very expensive legal firms - should have been jumping out of the corporate sea like salmon for the opportunity to sponsor next month’s Irish Gold Cup but there’s no getting away from how it’s disappointing no deal at all could be put in place for 2016.
In terms of ‘morkoting’ profile Irish racing doesn’t have too many better rabbits to pull from the hat than the centrepiece of its only card containing four Grade 1 prizes, just weeks before the Cheltenham festival, live on RTE, and at an internationally proven track with a portfolio already running the sponsorship gamut from Longines to Copper Face Jacks.
If nothing else, you would imagine a bookie would leap at the opportunity, especially since it has been available since last May when Hennessy announced the end of their 25 year sponsorship. Yet that appears not to be the case and the hunt is already on for 2017 with the aim being a prestige backer willing to commit to a deal for between three and five years.
There is always speculation as to what sponsors actually cough up in return for getting their name tagged to a race but it will hardly be reassuring if one of the game’s jewels can’t attract a deal, especially at what many would argue is the country’s top track which is in the middle of an expensive redevelopment.
Then again it probably won’t be the end of the financial world if it doesn’t happen since racecourses must have the most cast-iron financial plan in the game apart from shareholders in Galileo. For many of them attendances have become merely the cherry on top of the television picture pie, prizemoney is looked after, and any development is subsidised by government.
In many respects it’s an enviable business model, and always with the safety net of sitting on nicely appreciating land value. All that’s really important it seems is keeping a firm grip on those media rights.
Having had a little pop at bookmakers for shortening Bellshill’s Cheltenham odds on the back of doing little more than he should have at Naas a week ago, it seems only right to point out how doing the same with Min on the back of his Grade 2 win at Punchestown seems equally questionable. When a horse starts at 1-7 it’s hardly a shock to anyone that it might win impressively.
Even so, the style of what Min did was very impressive indeed. Clearly he ran too free but give him a pace to aim at and who knows what might happen because the way he powered away again from his admittedly less than earth-shattering opposition really caught the eye.
And finally, since we’re on the vague and theoretical, it was interesting to note some of the ‘appalled’ reaction to the Swedish harness race rider who revealed she ate her horse and ‘best friend’ after it was badly injured.
Helena Stahl’s logic seems impeccable — “I told my mother that if I could not eat meat from an animal that had a good life, I will never eat meat again. Either I ate her up or the worms did.”
It’s usually a safe bet to assume a correlation between overt sentimentality about animals and a lack of direct experience in dealing with the reality of looking after them.
