Wednesday February 22nd 2023

Good grief, Harry, you are going back to comments which I made in the Guardian on 7th February! You will make me think I have some importance at last...but I don't. I think you are in danger of trying to make the facts suit your argument, which they do not.

I see no contradiction between seeing Willie Mullins as an astute operator who is well aware of when and how to advance his interests and those of his owners (that is his job) and noting that the effect of those comments might avert a difficult situation at Cheltenham. To grasp at the "tone" of my comments to claim that I am hypocritical is to grasp at straws. I never said that Willie Mullins "misused" his influence. I said that he knew what he was doing.

I think if anyone else reads this (!) then I want a fuller version of what I actually said, not an interpretation of it to be available,

"I don't believe that Willie Mullins is as innocent as you seem to think. It was no accident. He is so well versed in putting comments out at the right time for his interests, that it strains credibility beyond the reasonable to believe that he has kept schtum all this time because no-one asked him."

You chose, though no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong (and I can't be bothered to trawl through your comments of 7th February to be believe that his comments were innocent ones just on the spur of the moment. Pull the other one.

I repeat, there is no contradiction between noting WM's sublime media surefootedness and noting any positive effect that it might have. I have a lot of admiration for WM, who couldn't. but he does not thereby attain a position which puts him beyond thoughtful comment or critical evaluation.

Do you believe that certain trainers such as Willy Mullins, John Gosden, Nicky Henderson, certain riders like Frankie Dettori (I have forgotten the name of the American trainer who you defended to the last ditch (you corrected my spelling of his name, I think)) and no doubt a long list of others should never be criticised. Does the fact that they have achieved a lot makes them untouchable? I do not share that view.

You say, "But as a professed whip banner you will presumably regard the ensuing chaos as a price worth paying if it points to the promised land of a whipless world. So Cheltenham will be where we wince as the sticking plaster is ripped from the wound, as the current popular saying goes."

I admire the rhetoric, but that is all it is. I think terms like "professed whip banner" are childish. Just as "determined horse flogger" would be if I used it as a description of you and others, which I shall not. Just because I would like to see whips used solely for safety purposes does not mean that I shall relish chaos in the current phase of whip stroke reduction. On the issue you raise, neither of us knows what will happen. Let us hope that the fallout will be minimal and that jockeys will adapt quickly to the changes.

Overall, I am weary of the tendency to paint anyone who has the temerity to make (reasoned) criticism of the established order in the racing world as part of some diabolical treasonous sect which is hatching treacherous plots to lay the entire racing landscape waste and uninhabitable for centuries ahead. You get my point, espressed somewhat figuratively.

Yes, of course we agree about some things. It is worth remembering that.

Feb 14 is nine days ago. Not that long to hark back to. As for "trawling" through your comments, that's not for me. I leave that to the blessed Alex on TH.

The key phrase in your Mullins observation was "putting comments out at the right time for his interests", as opposed to the common good. It's true he has more to lose than everyone else by sheer weight of entries with a chance of winning, but I didn't get a hint of special pleading in his comments. His view is that what's good for one is good for all.

I'm a believer in rational change but not self-harm which I feel is what racing is going through under its current leadership.

Harry, thanks. But it wasn't 14th February, it was 7th February, which was 16 days ago.

https://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/161140638

I don't mind anyone looking through my comments as they are on the record for anyone. (They just go to 100 pages btw). Mainly, I am relieved that you did not come up with a haymaker which would have laid me out.

You say of Willy Mullins,

"His view is that what's good for one is good for all."

But in this case it isn't, I think. Had his view prevailed, it would have been better for him as the Irish jockeys who have been riding mainly in Ireland would have had less practice with the whip rule changes than the British riders, so it would have been better for him if the implementation was suspended.

I think we have bored ourselves with this topic for the present (at least I have) so unless you discover some electric new revelation, that's all for now.

What's Alex been doing? I see someone in the last thread has calculated that if he'd put win bets on his place only selections, his system would be £1100 better than it is. I haven't seen any response from Alex to that as the threads have been closed so far.