'He's Very Well'

It's long established in the media game that there's limited public appetite for good news stories but it would be churlish not to lead off on Faugheen's wonderful Punchestown comeback. There was a resounding feel-good factor about this superb champion's return to action. The cliché about them never coming back is depressingly rooted in evidence. Faugheen however conjured hopes that another cliché relating to form being temporary but class permanent applies in his case.

In a dozen starts prior to the Morgiana Hurdle, Willie Mullins's horse proved himself an outstanding talent without ever quite seeming to capture the imagination. Even his trainer appeared more enamoured of his ill-fated stable companion Vautour. But absence appears to have made the public heart grow fonder and Faugheen received a fine reception at Punchestown.

There was certainly a neat synchronicity to his settling a score with the Morgiana, scene of his sole defeat to date, and it would be a perfect outcome to Faugheen's second act if he becomes the first ten year or older since Sea Pigeon (1980-81) to win the Champion Hurdle. Then he might get his proper due as an exceptional champion.

As for those who dismiss Faugheen's right to a place on the pantheon because he has mostly beaten a lot of stable companions just consider the quality of those stable companions. Most of them would in turn have beaten Theatreworld who kept getting beaten up by a certain Istabraq who remains a public darling.

Back to more usual media matters and the legendary American trainer Bob Baffert supposedly greeted a press throng on the backstretch one morning with a promise - "I've got some really good bullshit for you guys!" If it's true he was simply acknowledging how what many racing professionals are prepared to reveal for public consumption can differ from what's really going on.

Since horses form and health can fluctuate from day to day, and their trainers can be regularly queried about their wellbeing, the safest option can often be the anodyne ' he's very well' quote that allows someone say something without really saying anything.

There are exceptions prepared to take public interest into account but most punters acknowledge that those working with horses, especially those paying the bills on those horses, usually get to know what's happening with them first and are entitled to know first.

So for many the problem with how news of Altior's controversial defection from the upcoming Tingle Creek eventually came to light wasn't so much in the timing as the method.

Two days after Nicky Henderson said in a TV interview last Monday that Altior was on target for the race came news the horse would miss out. Henderson first indicated this on Twitter but it was quickly followed up with more detail in a blog he puts his name to for a betting firm. That blog said Altior had made a whistling sound the previous Saturday.

For a grandee of British jump racing, Henderson has attracted a lot of controversy over recent years and he has taken a lot of flak about releasing this bulletin through a bookmaker website. He in turn has taken umbrage at some of the comment, pointing out how he has used such a medium before.

Punters by nature are suspicious and attention has focussed on Altior's drift in ante-post betting lists before Henderson's confirmation that he would miss the Tingle Creek. Such drifts on the exchanges are often a good indicator - although not always - that something isn't quite right. Such vacuums are hardly ideal but waiting for any ideal in such circumstances involves waiting forever.

It also doesn't do to get too pious about ante-post betting since the sums involved are usually a pittance. Henderson is only reflecting reality too when pointing out how if he was to keep the public informed on every sniffle and tweak a high profile horse gets he wouldn't be able to do much else.

But what all this really shows are the dangers involved in playing the bullshit game through remunerative sponsorship deals with gambling firms.

Many top trainers and jockeys are signed up to bookmakers as brand ambassadors or bloggers, usually pedalling banalities that give readers an illusion of being in the know. Almost invariably the substance of these offerings is thin, usually a harmless exercise in making a few quid. They're also so ubiquitous that most people overlook just how unlikely they are.

This is a sport so conscious of image that Daryl Jacob's heated conversation with a rival after a race landed him in front of a hearing because it looked bad. The buzz world in relation to a multitude of racing issues is optics, an acknowledgement that how something appears to both the general and betting public matters. Yet optics don't seem to matter at all when it comes to so many of its leading lights being commercially tied to bookmakers.

It's perfectly possible to simultaneously insist there's no skulduggery in these deals while also pointing out how bad they look.

Racing encourages public interest, much of which comes through betting, which depends on trying to project as level a playing field as possible. No one in the real world can expect it to be perfectly level, just as no one can expect some perfect impartiality or perfect demarcation between bookmakers and professionals. But the sport leaves itself wide open to suspicion when the relationship looks so cosy.

Such personalised celebrity advertising works through association and the pay-off is in how that association appeals to the public. Often the response is that it's harmless but advertising wouldn't be an industry worth billions if it didn't impact. And racing appears notably reluctant to face up to just how negative the optics are of bookmakers appearing to have trainers and jockeys in their pocket.

Those within racing are no more immune to personal issues than anyone else so news that three jockeys, including the Irish National winner, Ger Fox, have tested positive for cocaine can hardly be a shock in itself. That they all tested positive on the one day is worrying however.

It's hard to be too sanctimonious about such things and crucially a lot of people will point to the lack of cheating in sporting terms. But it's also dangerous to be too cool for school about it. This stuff might be everywhere but, you know what, it's an illegal Class A drug. And race-riding is a fraught enough business without having it in your system going out there to compete.

The implications of the €6,000 fine imposed on trainer Mick Winters, and the 21 day ban for rider Barry John Foley, under 'Non Trier' rules over the running of Churchtown Glen at Cork on Sunday will be picked over for some time to come in terms of their severity in comparison to other Rule 212 cases this year. Winters has indicated he will appeal.

The Co. Cork trainer is a widely popular figure and will have a lot of goodwill behind him. But even a cursory glance at the head-on camera indicates that if the stewards hadn't acted the betting public would be entitled to ask why the hell not. Maybe there's a reason a competent jockey like Foley rode like he did up the straight but it will be interesting to find out what it is. At face value it looks bad. And the new rule means such appearances count.

As for the severity of punishment, such discretion is within the rules and the popularity or circumstances of an individual should hardly come into it. If this is the standard, then as long as it is exercised without fear or favour then overall the implications can only be positive.