To Have And Have Not

The gaping divide between jump racing's haves and have not's won't be filled by fiddly tweaks to the programme book, convoluted handicap conditions, more prizemoney or cosmetic social-media courses. Those spouting 'positive' platitudes will dismiss that as pessimism. It isn't. It's simply an acknowledgement that the gap exists not through misfortune but as a consequence of Irish racing's official policy for over a decade and a half.

Horse Racing Ireland insists it wants quality racing. In a limited winter programme that impacts on opportunity for the majority of owners and trainers. Even if it was doable, increasing opportunities would just mean more bad races for bad horses, the sort of betting shop fodder so heavily criticised in Britain. Is that really something to aspire to?

But HRI's principal focus has always been, and continues to be, on prizemoney, the argument being it's the seed-corn for investment, especially of the overseas variety. And the logic of its dispersal is basically the 'trickle-down' argument. That the 'trickle-down' theory is widely discredited as simply a way of making the rich richer and the poor poorer seems to count for little. And that's hardly coincidence.

Because what is HRI if not a conflux of Irish racing's rich and powerful. Sure there are token dollops of relatively proletarian roughage stirred into the rich boardroom mix for optics sake. But it is an elite sector of owners and breeders who have the clout to dictate policy and that policy is resolutely free-market survival of the fittest.

Which was fine by everyone when everyone felt fit during the 'Celtic Tiger' blip. The market is wonderful when everyone can ride the financial wave because it's easy to be monetarist when you're flush. It's a lot harder when you're under pressure and things are squeezing up all round.

That's the hollow core to widespread complaints by trainers that they're finding it hard to survive. There's a presumption to a lot of it that they're entitled to survive. And that's news to a lot of us also caught up in ruthless bottom-line rationalisation that has made the rich even richer and which makes talent and past accomplishment so disposable.

Only a true Thatcherite bastard can't feel for people struggling to make a living. But a lot of those now arguing for restriction and subsidy were once pretty Thatcherite in their own economic outlook and their complaints hark back a little to the agricultural attitude of 'one man-one grant.'

It makes for an uncertain future but arguing with HRI about it is futile. HRI is certain of what it's doing, and why.

It's even got to a stage where it seems flat racing might even have become more of a workable option of small to middle-rank trainers than the grassroots code although that perception is perhaps another sign of the cyclical nature of these things. Looking for lessons in a branch that was the very essence of elitism not so long ago mightn't be very productive.

A lot of elements that make the flat work can't transfer to the jumps anyway. But with a 'paasitive' hat on there is one step that might be considered which could help trainers a little in their fight against economic rationalisation.

That's the creation of a claiming race programme for the jumps. By definition such races are not for the elites. But it's debatable if resources, and perhaps even more importantly, political will, are likely to be put behind such a move. And as Willie Mullins has said, who sets out to buy a bad horse?

Separately it was interesting to read trainer Pat Doyle's comments after winning at Cork last week with Kaiser Black. He said: "I'd have been disappointed if he'd been beaten but I have to thank HRI as I hadn't him declared. They rang me at 10.10 yesterday morning to say only four had been declared and I declared him then!"

All of which is very neighbourly, except that if I was one of the owners of the runner up Macs Legend I would feel entitled to feel more than a little sore that the reason I was prevented from winning was HRI meddling.

This clearly is justified in the interests of competition but what it effectively means is that owners and trainers who plan properly, go through the various entry hoops in good time, and are awake to potential opportunity, risk being check-mated by a bureaucracy helping out those either unable or unwilling to do the same. That isn't HRI's function.

The most obvious example of this pattern is the increased number of reopened races which has led to racecourse reports of HRI personnel hitting the phones and effectively hustling for runners. That too shouldn't be its function. There's a craft to race-planning, and a degree of professionalism in making entries properly. All this does is make that skill redundant.

If the system can't operate properly as it is designed, or can't be trusted to, then it isn't fit for purpose. And if it isn't fit for purpose then no amount of fiddling will help.

The Dubai World Cup card continues to be a difficult sell in this part of the world but anyone who didn't go 'Wow' at Arrogate's performance on Saturday has bigger racing problems than buying into Meydan.

That was an astounding performance by a monster of a dirt horse. Racing on dirt is a radically different discipline to running on turf and there's a remorselessness to Arrogate that makes the idea of any European 'turfiste' out-galloping him in a Breeders Cup Classic seem like wishful thinking. And best of all at the weekend he did it without lasix.

It's the insidious nature of US racing's medication policy however that even lasix-free there remain elements of unease when American horses put in sparkling performances, even one as luminous as Arrogate's. He was lasix free at the weekend but the potential longer-term benefits of running on medication on every other occasion are unquantifiable. And it's the not knowing that's so dangerous.