- This topic has 51 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 hours, 13 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Good piece by Lee Mottershead in the RP today:
Cheltenham took an unnecessary risk – could a defence have been mounted had it gone horribly wrong?
The drama in the dark revived memories of a grim episode that led to a famous court case
Sometimes you can be rewarded for taking a chance. Sometimes you get punished. Forty years ago on what is now Cheltenham Festival Trials day, there was a notable example of a bold call that proved to be cursed.
Dawn Run was having her final run before seeking to become the first horse to complete the Champion Hurdle-Gold Cup double. Although relatively inexperienced over fences, she was expected to post an impressive success in the Holsten Distributors Chase, a precursor for what is now the Cotswold Chase.
All was going according to plan as Tony Mullins guided the great mare to the sixth fence from home.
“So far not a semblance of a serious mistake,” said Julian Wilson in his BBC Grandstand commentary. “This is only her fourth race over fences but certainly her best performance of jumping so far. And this is the last open ditch. And she’s a bit close. And she’s gone!”
Dawn Run, who famously went on to win the Gold Cup two months later, made a mess of the ditch and unseated her jockey, who landed on his feet. So, too, on Saturday did all those involved in deciding that Cheltenham’s final race was safe to run. What we do not yet know is how fortunate they were. What we can say with absolute certainty is that regardless of the race’s outcome, a risk was taken in the gathering gloom.
In a Racing TV interview between Lydia Hislop and Cheltenham’s clerk of the course Jon Pullin, Hislop asked Pullin if the large hole that had been discovered close to the two-furlong pole was potentially a drainage hole. Pullin accepted it could be. That being the case, one wonders if any of those involved in determining if the Grade 2 Classic Novices’ Hurdle ought to be run had any recollections of what took place at Doncaster in September 1989.
On the opening afternoon of the four-day St Leger meeting, the Paul Cook-ridden Madraco galloped into a hole and fell during the Portland Handicap, leading to a three-horse pile-up. Following a track inspection racing was permitted to continue but two days later Able Player fell around 100 yards from where the previous incident had occurred. The meeting was abandoned and the St Leger was transferred to Ayr the following Saturday.
Cook broke ribs, a collarbone, hand and foot. His career was finished by the fall, as was that of fellow rider Ian Johnson. Madraco suffered a serious injury. Fortunately, his life was saved.
In the High Court case that followed four years later it was established that Madraco’s fall had been caused by a hole in the track that resulted from drainage work. Doncaster’s council owners were ordered to pay Cook £352,000 in compensation, equivalent to well over £900,000 today.
Addressing the court, Mr Justice Drake said: “The truth as I find it is that when other horses ran over the same ground before and after Madraco fell, they were quite simply lucky. It just happened that they didn’t hit on a bad spot while Madraco did.
“In other words, it was all a matter of chance as to which horses would be injured. If the bookmakers, present on 13 September, 1989, had known the full facts, they would have been justified in running a side book on a form of Russian roulette: which was to be the unlucky horse and rider?”
Given the size of the hole found at Cheltenham, it seems safe to assume the horses and jockeys who took part in the three hurdle races run at the track on Saturday may also have been winners in a game of Russian roulette. Cheltenham and its Jockey Club owners may have been similarly fortunate to escape a damaging legal case.
That is not to say the hole’s emergence was anyone’s fault, nor can we know for long how it had been there. Exploratory work will determine why there was a hole, while one would imagine a wider assessment of the track will take place in advance of the festival. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to question whether there could possibly have been sufficient time on Saturday to conclude that conditions were incontrovertibly safe for the final race to take place.
That it was an event of some significance and a Cheltenham Festival trial should have been – and hopefully was – wholly irrelevant. It would have been disappointing to lose the race but, in reality, that would never have happened, with Sandown’s card this weekend having offered an alternative home. That would also have provided a chance to hold the race in daylight, as opposed to the near darkness that rendered the photo-finish camera useless.
Those who ultimately had to make the decision on continuing or cancelling were in an unenviable position, one that must have been extremely stressful. They knew they were in a race against time, yet that, in itself, should have resulted in stumps being drawn, for it is hard not to believe more time would have been given to examining the course if the hole had been found much earlier in the day.
All racing, and particularly jump racing, is about risk and reward. There will not always be agreement about what represents unnecessary risk but based on what we know, and bearing what we still do not know and could not have known as afternoon turned to evening, the chance that was taken at Cheltenham may have been excessive.
The sport arguably dodged a bullet on Saturday. Where would it be now, however, if something had gone wrong in that final contest? In such circumstances, would the explanation for allowing a race to be run on a course where a large, unexplained hole had been found much less than an hour earlier have sounded convincing? Could the BHA and Jockey Club have been accused of staging a game of Russian roulette? The answer to those questions surely tells us all we need to know.
I remember Madracos injury. I wrote to the stable at the time and had a lovely reply from them. From memory I think his trainer ran to the stricken horse worried that he would be pts and thankfully, as a model patient, he recovered.
Watching the head on of the Cleeve coming down to the last and the horse on the outside of the field may have only been mere feet away from where that hole actually was. Had they (or any of the horses in the previous hurdle races) landed on it (given how far down it went), it would have been fatal for the horse and at that speed the jockeu more than likely would have been fired over the horse’s head (as it went down) probably head first into the ground……it really doesn’t bear thinking about.
Quite frankly given the short amount of time they inspected the surrounding area (and dolled it off) and the fact that at that time they really didn’t know what exactly had caused it or whether it was an isolated issue, it was negligent of them to go ahead and run the race……..because we know full well that they were rushing things due to the time fast approaching when sunset was due.
It looked too damn dark on the TV pictures before they went out and we all know just how much TV pictures enhances the actual ambient light available and the so called photo finish picture was a damning inditement of how idiotic it was to proceed with the running of the race.
THE HOLE
I have reported this happening before but a long time ago BUT as it is a grey and rather dreary afternoon I thought I might brighten the scene and write it again, also Sedgefield was very kind to me.
I was living in Frankfurt in the mid 80’s. I would buy the Sportwelt every day it was sold – It wasn’t every day and it was expensive 3 marks I think for a slimmie.
They had jockey’s weights in kilos so I adapted to that and used to go to Frankfurt race course very often. A favourite horse at that time ( never have particular favourites these days it’s all mathematics and money really) was the sprinter Orojoya and I picked up a good price on her when she ran in Frankfurt and later backed her at 1/3 @ Sandown (last race ) or Kempton in blighty on a rather dreary evening where I heard a bookie shout – I’ll pay you Monday at Leicester – such were the times them. I was invited to the John Dunlops early evening party after racing by a lady that new him – but I declined because I felt sorry for the lady’s husband.
Anyway all that aside I want to get to the HOLE. One Sunday as it was often a Sunday…duty calls I must go ( maybe finish it later )
Just had time to edit the mistakes 👌I remember some of the newspapers published pictures of the injured Paul Cook on the ground after the fall from Madraco. And it wasn’t just the tabloids – the supposedly high minded Independent did so as well. A grotesque invasion of privacy.
I see the jockeys who rode in the last race have said a mountain has been made out of a molehill regards running the race. Got to say I agree with them. Of course the photo finish print was farcical but I’ve seen quite a few similar ones at Lingfield all weather meetings in the past and presumably the judge had an enhanced one to split the 2 horses.
“I see the jockeys who rode in the last race have said a mountain has been made out of a molehill regards running the race.”
I bet they wouldn’t be saying that if no inspection had taken place and one of their mounts had stepped into the hole, resulting in injuries to horse and rider.
Def Glad , Cheltenham is the home of nh racing , it’s trials day , the course should be spot on , if not then the last race should have been canx
“I see the jockeys who rode in the last race have said a mountain has been made out of a molehill regards running the race.”
I’ll remember that the next time they doll off the home straight obstacles at Cheltenham due to low sun.
I would like to know the racing line taken by Sir Gino in relation to that hole. Surely just touching the lip of the hole at half speed could have caused potential serious injury in half a tonne of racehorse?
Was it then exacerbated by jumping the later hurdles? The tail carriage after the 3rd and the way he was moving before going lame 3 out might suggest something was amiss.
It was just as well the hurdle races had so few runners (did the hole appear after the Juvenile hurdle?). Imagine if 18 or 24 runners had been running towards that hole. It doesn’t bear thinking about.
And how could Cheltenham groundstaff tell for certain in fast fading light in January that further holes weren’t lurking or the ground might give way elsewhere? Even Pullin couldn’t say what the issue was.
It was grossly irresponsible to run that last race. Imagine had a serious injury occurred due to a fall at an obstacle and there was no light to see what was going on. The way the day was going it wouldn’t have surprised me in the slightest.
“I bet they wouldn’t be saying that if no inspection had taken place and one of their mounts had stepped into the hole, resulting in injuries to horse and rider”
There was an inspection though, no one would be saying that or would have wanted the race run if there hadn’t been an inspection. I heard Lydia say that she didn’t think jockeys shouldn’t be involved in the decision. Of course they should, they are the ones risking life and limb and who decides if obstacles are omitted because of the sun?
I believe the BHA have a no racing after sunset rule where there are no floodlights.
Yesterday sunset at Cheltenham was at 4.42pm. The last race finished at 4.43pm.
As I said previously what if a serious injury had occurred during the last race to horse or jockey? There was no daylight left and emergency services would have been working in darkness on the track.
Major overreaction by many (who think they know better), no surprise there.
There was an inspection and it was deemed safe to continue, bypassing the area of concern.
Could there be other undiscovered holes hidden below the surface? – possibly. This could be the case on any racecourse.
If we are to take seriously any of the paranoia exhibited recently, then all racing in the UK must be immediately suspended until a full survey of every racecourse has been performed, using ground penetrating radar.
Alternatively, we can take the sensible option and continue to trust the dedicated grounds staff with many years of experience, who inspect the track before, during and after each race meeting, to identify any areas of concern for further investigation and action if required.
Risk should always be properly assessed and mitigations put in place where appropriate, which is what Cheltenham did. It is never possible to eliminate risk completely.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
At the time, when you don’t know what caused the issue in the first place or how long said hole had been sitting there waiting to be discovered and you have a quick/rushed check in and around the area of the hole (in rapidly fading light because you are cognisant that sunset is fast approaching), then that is not doing your full due dilligence.
They got away with it and the rather glib comment about mountain out of a molehill is easy to say afterward when nothing has happened – this wasn’t simply a false patch of oversaturated ground that could be bypassed, it was a hole deep enough that a man was able to put his arm (up to his shoulder) into. They did not have enough pertinent information on what caused the issue to go ahead with racing and this following comment to me proves that it was ill advised to carry on:
Cheltenham’s clerk of the course Jon Pullin said further investigations would take place to determine the cause of the hole, which the stewards’ report cited as a potential “drainage issue”. A spokesperson for Cheltenham racecourse said further updates will be provided when more is known about the cause of the false ground.
“An investigation was held by Pullin and the Cheltenham team, with a rail repositioned to bypass the area, and jockeys Gavin Sheehan, Danny Mullins, Nico de Boinville and Sean Bowen, as well as trainers Nicky Henderson, Ben Pauling and Olly Murphy, agreed conditions were safe”
I’d have thought the PJA and NTF would have got wise to this tactic by now. Every time there is a question over safety on the tracks, officials recruit participants to ‘help’ them make a decision. Seems sensible on the face of it. But some day a life will be lost – human or equine, giving jockeys and trainers a very hard path to justice.
If I were the boss at NTF or PJA, I’d be telling members, leave it to ‘the officials’ representing the track, the organisation that should face full liability.
“An investigation was held by Pullin and the Cheltenham team, with a rail repositioned to bypass the area, and jockeys Gavin Sheehan, Danny Mullins, Nico de Boinville and Sean Bowen, as well as trainers Nicky Henderson, Ben Pauling and Olly Murphy, agreed conditions were safe”
Okay, after Nicky withdrew Act Of Innocence he and Nico agreed that the course was safe……
Steep – I am also of that same opinion that jockeys/trainers shouldn’t be put in that position given that they rock up to the area affected and are there for a few minutes and then are expected to say yay or nay on that limited information…….information that in this case we know was incomplete because they didn’t know (and still don’t know) what caused the issue in the first place.
The course officals/stewards/BHA/groundstaff should be the only ones collectively involved in making that overall decision and if there is any doubt you should err on the side of caution and the race and/or the meeting should be abandoned on safety grounds.
As was pointed out in the Mottershead piece, the second incident of a horse falling at that St Leger meeting happened a hundred or so yards away from where the first fall happened. In this case (with time/daylight fast running out) you didn’t see a lot of additional time spent examining the course a hundred yards or so in any direction away from where the hole actually was.
I would much prefer seeing racing abandoned than a severe (possible fatal) injury happening to either horse or especially a jockey because due dilligence in assessing potential ground risk wasn’t done thoroughly enough.
Of course those concerned were going to say conditions were safe – as they couldn’t have come out and said: ‘well, we have done a initial inspection in and around the area of concern and have dolled it off accordingly but at this time we don’t know what caused the hole and don’t have enough time remaining to do a full inspection but we are going to race anyway”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.