Forum Replies Created
- Posts
A nice tribute to Sam Brown on Anthony Honeyball’s website. What a wonderful racehorse he has been; he is exactly the type of horse that made me fall in love with Jumps racing.
Disappointing that the Racing Post has still not reported on his retirement at the time of writing.
I’ve not been impressed by the recent carry on about whether Constitution Hill should run in the Champion Hurdle, but am inclined to interpret his parading at Cheltenham more positively.
The horse is a star who attracts great interest from the racing public. I can well understand why Cheltenham would want to extend an invite. And for all his foibles, Henderson usually seems quite gracious to me, and I don’t think there is some underhand desire to steal the limelight.
It is indeed sad that Constitution Hill’s Jumps career has ended (hopefully for good, though who knows with Henderson). However, seeing him land on his head three times in the past year was much sadder, and a fourth time could have easily become a tragedy.
I don’t have any particular expectations for his Flat career, but am glad this star racehorse remains in training, and am looking forward to seeing how he gets on.
I wonder what changed their minds, as it seemed pretty obvious they were keen to run. I wonder if some external pressure was applied.
Whatever the reason though, good.
There’s absolutely no reason for the BHA failing to get involved. They have all kinds of other rules for preventing horses running, some of them unnecessary in my view. They needn’t even make a big display of it, a quiet word of warning first so Henderson and Buckley could bow out gracefully would hopefully be sufficient.
I’m not generally a fan of having rules that prevent horses from running, and am usually supportive of connections making their own decisions. But all sense has gone out the window here, and there is a significant wider risk to the sport. It is all so frustrating when the situation is entirely avoidable.
I’d refer to most financial support payments made by the state to individuals as “state benefits”, so the state pension would fall under that terminology from my perspective.
I know “benefits” can be an emotive term that some will associate mainly with providing needless support for the workshy, and have encountered people who receive things such as carer’s allowance who don’t like it referred to as a “benefit”. But I think all these things are types of benefit really.
I said before the Southwell race that the fuss about Constitution Hill’s participation only made sense if they were still eyeing up a Champion Hurdle attempt.
Tomorrow’s schooling session cannot possibly tell connections anything new about how he will cope back over hurdles under raceday conditions. But it must be long odds on that the horse is somehow going to tell them that he should run at Cheltenham.
Totally agree Astralcharmer. The BHA are only too eager to introduce unnecessary restrictions such as horses being banned from running if they are too far out of the weights, yet are silent about a horse with Constitution Hill’s recent abysmal jumping record taking part in a flagship event.
That’s the thing that would really grate with me if he won pilgarlic – the fawning over connections for taking such an irresponsible decision.
Disappointing that we are now going to have another Henderson circus relating to whether Constitution Hill runs in the Champion Hurdle.
The risks to the horse and the reputation of the sport are simply too great in my view, and I wish they would just draw a line under his Jumps career.
If the horse goes and wins, which he well could, it will still have been a reckless decision.
Haha, yes there are some parallels with the House of Commons now you mention it HDLG!
I enjoy a good debate about what it means to be the “best” or to be “great”, and who meets these criteria. But I’ve never seen a discussion of this type where anyone changes anyone else’s mind.
Not impressed that the commentator failed to mention the status of the horses who had fallen in the Dovecote, but did mention the jockeys. Even if things don’t look good, they can still say the horse is receiving attention and they will update further when there is more news.
Mentioning the jockeys but not acknowledging the horses at all gives the impression the horses don’t matter.
A lot of people on here complain about the lack of leadership and innovation in British racing, me included. But hats off to Southwell and whoever created that race to try and attract Constitution Hill. The horse is a star, and it has generated huge interest. I am glad they were rewarded with such a positive result.
It did feel a little like the horse and his connections were getting special treatment, which I was not overly comfortable with. But I guess that happens in most sports that are wise to the marketability of their biggest names.
Even if Constitution Hill achieves nothing further after tonight, it was a joy to see him back to his imperious self. I am so glad connections gave this route a try rather than just giving up and retiring him.
It would have been awful if his career had ended with that series of falls. Let’s hope they stick to the Flat.
Welcome shep, it’s always good to hear some new voices. You make some interesting points.
I think I’d mind less about a major heritage racecourse such as Kempton being lost if it were being replaced by another racecourse elsewhere. But it isn’t, and it just feels like another sad erosion of racing’s status.
Londoners might not have loved Kempton, but reducing the opportunities to go racing close to the capital also seems like a step in the wrong direction. As I’ve said previously, I think Kempton has been allowed to decline, and I’m not only talking about lack of investment on infrastructure, I’m also talking about a general lack of vision and intent.
I agree with CAS that the King George would probably lose some of what makes it special if it were moved from Boxing Day. If it really must change location, Aintree seems completely wrong to me, and Ascot or Sandown would be my preference.
