A Champion Days Racing

Ignoring the little matter of Christophe Soumillon’s whip ban, more of that anon, there can be little doubt that the first British Champions Day at Ascot can justifiably claim to have lived up to its billing of “The Greatest Show On Turf”

Of course the organisers had a little outside help in that the weather God’s were incredibly kind and there was the presence of arguably the greatest horse of all time, Frankel.

However even the most determined Newmarketphile, even the most cynical sceptic must accept that yesterday went really well and once again Ascot proved itself the perfect venue of a major race meeting.

Rod Street and his team must be justifiably proud of the way the day turned out, although they must also be cursing the BHA in terms of the timing of the introduction of the new whip rules.

Frankel crossing the line

The balance of the days racing was good, although it may be worth considering a 45 minute gap between the two feature races as it seemed we were thrown into the Champion Stakes all too soon after Frankel’s impressive victory in the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes.

My biggest concern as the day approached was the on course presentation, my fear were unfounded. Back in August I was very critical of Ascot’s use of Matt Chapman’s on Shergar Cup day and I was equally worried when I heard he was to front the on-course presentation for Champions Day.

Those of you who read my blog last week will recall my reservations, although they were tempered with the comment that if anybody could pull it off then Matt could and pull it off he did.

I am happy to admit I was wrong and I believe Matt managed to get it right on the button. OK there were a couple of occasions when I feared his natural exuberance may have gotten the better of him but no he was good.  Robert Cowell was also a good choice as the straight man to Matt.

My only question about the presentation team was the “value” added by Amanda Davies and I still cannot help but feel she was included as the “token totty”.

I must admit I also had slight concerns about the use of Mike Vince for the on-course commentary, not least because Mike gets very little live racecourse commentary options.

Speaking to Mike beforehand, and I’m sure he will not mind me saying this, he was understandably nervous, especially by the final 29 runner contest. Mike was not helped by the fact, with coverage by BBC TV and radio as well as the Racetech commentator, none of the “official” commentary boxes were available and he had to make do with a makeshift position short of the finishing line.

Because of his makeshift position he did not have full use of the multiple camera shots the other commentators had.

In the circumstances Mike did very well indeed, his calls for the Championship races were absolutely fine and he was able to link in with the presentation team.

He also made a very good job of the final contest, considering the pictures and angles he had to work from and he should be rightly pleased with his afternoons work.

The only real gripe I would have about the presentation is it seemed to take precedence over the judge announcing the details of the result. On more than one occasion we had to wait for the winning distances and race times until after a winner had been “called back in”. It may sound insignificant but those details are important and need to be disseminated as quickly as possible, but that is a minor gripe in the scheme of things.

Ascot, once again, proved more than capable of hosting a major international meeting and it is certainly a more “user friendly” venue than Newmarket.

Much as I love Ascot I do think consideration should be given to alternating the meeting between the north and south, if only to give racegoers based in the north the opportunity to watch such high class racing live. Although, selfishly, I am more than happy if it does permanently reside at Ascot.

One thing that struck me yesterday was how popular the parade ring was. There may have been just over 26,749 at Ascot yesterday but the numbers around the parade ring were akin to those seen at the Royal Ascot where the total numbers are far higher.

Of course for all the positives and plaudits of the day, as well as the high class racing, the day was overshadowed by the ban and withholding of fees for Christophe Soumillion following his victory on Cirrus Des Aigles in the Champion Stakes.

Much has been written about the new whip rules in the last week and it is clear some compromise needs to be reached. So to save the egos getting in the way here is the solution.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the new rules so a “count” should remain in place, whether the current limit is correct is a moot point, we have not had any three mile slogs in the mud since their introduction. Retain the “count” but remove the final furlong restriction as it is abundantly clear it is difficult for the riders to judge when they have crossed the furlong marker.

The penalties need to be effective but it is clear the new penalties are too draconian for minor infringements. I would therefore retain the ban guidelines as they are now but would only introduce the withholding of fees and prize money for serious or repeated breaches. By serious I mean where the number of hits exceeds the limit by 50% or more (rounded up) or where a rider has a third breach in a rolling 12 month period.

Finally, Paul Roy should do the decent thing and resign. He has lost what little remaining credibility he may have had and, frankly his performance on RUK yesterday afternoon was an embarrassment.      

My coverage of British Champions Day

Whip Rules and Sponsorship

Well as day three of the new whip rule dawns I’m pleased to report that racing has not died a sudden death and that life carries on as normal.

That may be something of a surprise though if you have been taking note of all the doom laden and, in most cases, frankly ludicrous talk there has been on the subject.

There has been so much verbal diarrhoea spouted it is surprising there is not an outbreak of oral cholera within the industry.

The problem is there are so many entrenched and emotive opinions in the debate that many, on both sides, are not even prepared to listen to what the other side has to say.

As I have previously stated, I generally welcome the new rules and, even more so, the strong deterrent penalties, whilst having some reservations about the actual numerical guidelines, especially in national hunt racing.

Despite these reservations I unlike, it seems, many am prepared to give the new rules a go and see how they work.

Interestingly the first day of the new rules saw two bans handed out by the Salisbury Stewards and they, in a way, exemplified both sides of the argument.

Both bans came in the same race.

Kieren Fox was handed a 15 day ban for hitting his horse eleven times inside the final furlong, exceeding the new limit by four strokes.  In my view this is a pretty open and shut case as Fox flagrantly disregarded the new rules, almost cocking a snook at the new regulations and, as a result has paid the price. Needless to say connections of the horse, which went on to win, defended the rider clearly showing their philosophy that winning at all costs is more important than abiding by the rules.

That the horse was able to win and retain the race by virtue of breaking the rules illustrates the folly of not withholding the winning owners prize money as well, indeed of not disqualifying the winning horse.

Some argue the winning owners should not be punished due to the wrongdoing on a rider. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion it could be argued a horse should never be disqualified no matter how serious a riding offence a jockey commits. That is plainly untenable.

In addition the owner is effectively employing the jockey to ride his horse. It seems racing is the only industry in the country where employers (the owners) are not ultimately held accountable for the actions of their employees (the jockeys).

The five day ban handed to Richard Hughes in the same race, however, shows the difficulty of having an absolute limit. Most reasonable observers of the sport would have found very little wrong with Hughes’ ride but he was banned for exceeding the new rules by one strike inside the final furlong. He was arguing one of the strikes was given for safety reasons. Yes, technically he is in breach of the new rules but his ban does illustrate some of the ambiguity and I believe a ban under the entry point of five days would probably have been more appropriate. It will be interesting to see what happens when Hughes appeals.

In the next few days we have Cheltenham’s first meeting under the new rules and, of course, Champions Day at Ascot, both will be extremely interesting, both in terms of what the jockeys do and how the Stewards will act.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sponsorship has become an important factor in the sport and with diminishing Levy returns the income from sponsorship has become imperative for the racecourses.

I do wonder if race courses would draw the line at some forms of sponsorship?

As I write this I am thinking of one race in particular, namely the Sun Chariot Stakes, one of Newmarket’s major races of the year, for the race is sponsored by The Kingdom Of Bahrain.

Last week in what amounted to a political show trial, a group of doctors and nurses were convicted of various “subversion” offences with the convictions seemingly made on the basis of “confessions” extracted by alleged torture and sexual abuse. In truth these doctors and nurses were being prosecuted or should that be persecuted because they followed the Hippocratic Oath and treated anti-government protesters during the recent uprising.

Notwithstanding these show-trials the human rights record in Bahrain is appalling and one wonders why racing would want to be associated with such a repugnant regime.

As far as racing is concerned is it a matter of grabbing the money at any cost without considering the morality of its source?

Does racing really want to be financed by blood money?

It will be very interesting to see if racing continues its sponsorship links with Bahrain in 2012 and it will be interesting to see how it responds to the backlash if it does.  

Whilst Bahrain is perhaps an extreme example, it is not the only example of racing accepting money from questionable regimes or businesses and it is a subject worthy of much more detailed research and investigation – watch this space.

Do I, Don't I?

I have a dilemma.

A week on Saturday sees the inaugural British Champions Day at Ascot, the climax of Racing For Change’s (RfC) grand plan to add a narrative to the flat racing season.

On the one hand it promises to, probably, be the best single days flat racing staged in this country, with the added bonus of it being held at one of my favourite courses. On the other, it is in danger of turning into a form of three ring circus and from a “working” perspective it will probably be a difficult day.

Plus I have a few nagging doubts about the morality of the day.

Let me share some of my thoughts.

I have always given a cautious welcome to the Champions Day, certainly staging it at Ascot rather than Newmarket is an inspired choice. Ascot is an ideal venue in terms of facilities, location, configuration and viewing. One suggestion I would make regarding the venue for Champions Day, should it be an on-going feature, would be to consider alternating it between Ascot and York.

My main concern about Champions Day was the potential negative impact it could have on Longchamp’s Arc meeting. It could be argued some of the Group races at Longchamp this year did not have their usual strength in depth, although it is dangerous to make a judgement on the evidence of just one year.

Having seen how the day itself is being organised I have some more nagging doubts.

First of all there is the racecourse presentation which is being headed by ATR’s Matt Chapman and also includes somebody called Amanda Davies and trainer Robert Cowell.

Matt Chapman is quoted as saying, "the on track team see it as their mission to enhance the experience of regular racegoers while engaging and enlightening those less familiar with a truly great sport" – what wonderful marketing speak straight from the RfC Bible.

With an audience consisting of both hardened, experienced racegoers and newcomers that aspiration is going to be very difficult to achieve without the real risk of alienating significant sections of the audience.

In my experience regular racegoers do not want to be bombarded with constant chatter and what they consider “irrelevant” talk over the PA.

There has been a proliferation of this sort of presentation in recent years and it is questionable if it is always for the betterment of the raceday experience. I think it works better at the more family oriented meetings, not at the showcase meetings.

Some racecourses have handled this better than others. The ones who have got it right only have the presentation broadcast in certain parts of the course, thus giving racegoers the option to either opt-in or opt-out of listening to it.

Hopefully Ascot will do the same on Champions Day.   

As with the art of television commentary – less is best.

The presentation team composition is also very interesting.

I have already upset Matt Chapman in a previous epistle and I have no desire to further fan the flames today. Matt, however, is very much a Marmite™ character as far as followers of the sport are concerned and the organisers are taking a calculated gamble in using him as opposed to what could be considered a “safer” pair of hands.

Having said that, Matt is also, possibly, the one person who could actually pull this whole thing off – and this may come as a surprise - I genuinely hope he does.

As for Amanda Davies I must admit I hadn’t a clue who she is until I looked her up. It seems she is the daughter of David Davies, former BBC presenter and FA bod, and she apparently presents the sports news on the BBC News Channel. I am not aware of her having any racing pedigree and one assumes she is being wheeled out at the “token” female.

Her selection seems somewhat unfair on the, presumably more knowledgeable, females presenters who already work in racing. Is the suggestion none of these are good / pretty enough?   

Regarding Robert Cowell having never seen him in action I have no idea how suitable he is as a presenter / pundit but, again, I am surprised at the inclusion of a relative unknown in the line-up.

Time will ultimately tell and I am more than happy for my scepticism to be proven unfounded but is this really the best presentation line-up that could have been produced?

Another problem for me will be working at Champions Day.

Put simply the racing press corps can be divided into two camps, those of us who go racing most days at tracks, big and small, around the country and those who only turn up for the big meetings.

Although there are some notable exceptions, who do appear at the smaller courses day-in and day-out, most the correspondents for “The Nationals” tend to fall into the latter camp.

These are the ones who would not be seen dead at Fakenham on a wet Tuesday afternoon in November, assuming they even know where Fakenham is.

Yet they are the ones who invariably turn up at the all major meetings and then strut around the press room as if they own the place. Woe betide anybody who dares sit in “their seat” - even if they have not bothered using it the previous eight minor meetings at the course.

They are the ones who will bark at some poor employee of the racecourse “do you know who I am?” when they are faced with something that doesn’t quite go their way.

There is little more stressful than a press room full of egos.

The “morality” question stems from the financing of the day. Racing is pleading poverty, complaining about lack of money with the consequent result of ever decreasing prize money, leading to (selective) tariffs and protests. Yet racing is somehow able to stage a single days racing with prize money in excess of £3m.

OK a large amount of this money is coming from sponsorship and from Ascot but does it not sent out a confusing message about the state of racing?

Can such a huge amount of prize money be considered right in these austere times?

Does such huge prize money for six races just not enforce the generally held prejudice that racing is simply a rich man’s game?

It is akin to me complaining to all and sundry, making a really big deal of the matter, that my financial situation is such I could only afford to eat supermarket value range food. Only to then take my friends out to dine at The Fat Duck at £180 a head.  

So do I really want to spend the day working in a press room rammed full of egos, fighting for desk space, at a meeting which may well become a vaudeville show and where the prize money is arguably obscene?

Or do I want to go to Cheltenham where it will be much more sane?

Do I want to watch top draw races and the culmination of the flat racing season?

Or do I want to go to Cheltenham for what is, in effect, a low key meeting for the course?

Interestingly a number of my “day to day” racing colleagues have said they will be going to Cheltenham instead of Ascot – maybe the press room at Cheltenham will be busier than many expect.

As for me, I have not decided yet and I am still open to persuasion either way, although my car is currently parked facing west rather than south.

Weights, Drugs, Booze and Wrong Calls

There is so much to write about in what has been an eventful week.

There is one story which almost slipped through the net last Thursday and that concerns an appeal by Kieren Fox in relation to a four day ban he received for weighing in 1½lbs light at a Kempton meeting on 19^th September.

Custom and practice has dictated the jockey and the jockey alone is responsible for ensuring he carries the correct weight throughout the race. Yet, as soon as he weighs out the jockey hands his saddle to the trainer or head lad so the horse can be saddled. He will not see the saddle again until he sees the horse in the parade ring.

Aided by his very eloquent boss, John Best, the appeal panel found in Fox’s favour stating, “that there was not motive, opportunity nor evidence that Kieren Fox was responsible for the loss of 1½lb lead which was found to be missing on weighing in.”   

It is a very wise and sensible decision . . . how can a jockey be held responsible when the saddle is out of his direct control?

Let me say there is absolutely no question of nefarious goings on in this case and the likelihood is the weight accidentally dropped out of the saddle cloth as it was being carried from the weighing room to the saddling area.

However this decision of the disciplinary panel must result in a change to presumption that the jockey is presumed responsible, even when the saddle is out of his control.

If not the only solution I can see is the jockey is made to carry the saddle to the saddling area himself and he watches the saddling process himself, somehow I cannot see the likes of Fallon and Dettori doing that.   

When I fly, for example, I am quite happy to accept responsibility for what is in my baggage up until the point I check it in. Thereafter I would not expect to be held responsible for anything added or taken from my bag.

It was a busy day for the disciplinary panel last Thursday as also before them were Jack Mitchell and Franny Norton.

Jack Mitchell was before the panel for having traces of benzoylecgonine, a diagnostic metabolite of cocaine and a banned substance in his urine. In other words it indicated he had taken some cocaine in the previous 48 hours. To his credit Mitchell admitted the offence and was very contrite in his submission to the panel.

Norton was appearing before the panel after he failed a breath test for alcohol at Chester in May, indeed the alcohol reading was at a level higher than the allowed limit for driving.

Mitchell was banned for six months, Norton for 40 days.

Both bans are perverse and wrong.

Yes Mitchell was stupid and I am in no way condoning the taking of illegal drugs and what he did was wrong. Yes there were traces of benzoylecgonine in his urine but the actual taking of the cocaine may well have been 48 hours earlier so his ability to ride would not have been impaired that greatly, if at all. Yes he needs to be punished but a six month ban is excessive. If Mitchell’s assertion that this was a one off is accepted, and there is no reason to doubt what he said, then a shorter ban plus attendance at a drug rehabilitation program at his own expense should be sufficient deterrent.

Jack Mitchell

Mitchell is young and youngsters make mistakes, draconian punishments for such mistakes are excessive. To deny somebody of their livelihood for six months for using seems harsh. Firstly when you consider the police, automatically give a caution for a first offence.

Secondly the dealers, who are far more culpable than the users, receive an average sentence of 3 years 3 months and a £167 fine (of course that means they will 19 months in reality).

Turning to Norton he was about to ride a horse whilst over the permitted limit for alcohol – in other words he was drunk. He judgement must have been impaired and he was potentially a danger to himself, his mounts and to other riders. Especially at a tight turning course like Chester.

Yet he was handed a ban of forty days.

I’m sorry but I consider turning up at a racecourse drunk, potentially endangering other riders to be far more serious than Mitchell’s offence.

Norton does not even have the excuse of youth, he is 41 years old and should know better.

Whilst some mitigation factors can be made for Mitchell, none can be made for Norton.

As a footnote it is worth noting Norton was found guilty of having benzoylecgonine in his urine in 2003 and he only received a four month ban.

Finally the normally dependable Stewart Machin made an uncharacteristic mistake when calling the wrong winner at Warwick on Monday afternoon, Mistaking  Rio’s Girl for the very similarly coloured Straboe.  I was at Warwick and I can say the professional man that he is Stewart was absolutely shocked and devastated at the mistake he made.

The press room can be the cruellest place at times but even the most cynical hacks, and there were some at Warwick yesterday, were so taken aback at Stewart’s reaction that all offered him words of encouragement and not the extreme micky taking I’m sure he was expecting. The reaction from the guys in the press room indicates the respect we have for Stewart’s commentating.

Of course there was the inevitable verbal diarrhoea being spouted on Betfair, although to be fair it wasn’t as bad as it can be when we get the race mistakes from commentators.

Apparently one punter lost some £38k on Rio’s Girl based of Stewart’s call and many posters were rallying to that punters cause.

Sorry I have no sympathy for the punter at all, indeed I would actually go as far as to say he actually deserves to lose the money.

No commentator, no matter how good he is, is infallible and to rely on a third party when risking such sums of money is insanely stupid.

Also is there not a perverse contradiction here. Stewart is being criticised for mis-identifying two horses, yet the defenders of the punter are not criticising him, yet he too clearly failed to identify the two horses.     

No wonder the Betfair forum is considered such a joke.

Whipping Up A Good Report

There have been occasions when I have been critical of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) so let me begin by giving credit where credit is due.

The long awaited review into the use of the whip has been published and reading through the 78 pages it is clear the committee have carried out a thorough and balanced review and full credit to all those involved.

Before we go any further let me give my position on the whip. I am, instinctively, one of those who does not like seeing a horse being whipped.

Having said that, I have only sat on a horse once in my entire life and that concluded with me flying over the top of his head. I therefore accept the views of those who do ride horses that the whip is a necessary part of the sport, so I obviously have to accept the view of those who know better than me.

It is also clear, as the report pointed out, the current whip guidelines are ineffectual, ambiguous and frankly the punishments are no deterrent to errant jockeys.

What has been proposed are clear guidelines namely no more than seven hits with the whip in a flat race and no more than eight in a jump race, with no more than five strikes after the final fence / final furlong.

The caution for misuse has been withdrawn and an entry point of five days has been introduced. Also any rider picking up a ban of three or more days will have his riding fee / % payment taken away.

Penalties will be doubled for a second offence in a rolling twelve month period.

The rule changes certainly look to be less ambiguous and the penalties are certainly more effective but do they go far enough?

Take, for example, the upcoming Champions Day races. With such massive purses on offer most jockeys will make every effort to win the race including easily exceeding the new whip rules. If a jockey is a retained rider is he going to jeopardise a lucrative retainer by restricting his whip use and possibly losing the race?

The value of the retainer is worth a lot more than his riding fee and win percentage.

Anyway most owners would, in the circumstances, make sure the rider does not lose out as a result.

Now the BHA have thought of that one and introduced a rule banning owners from recompensing, either directly or indirectly, jockeys who are fined and lose their payments.

All very good but wholly unworkable and unenforceable – any owner or jockey with a half decent accountant will be able to find a way to get round that rule without being caught.

Indeed any owner who does fall foul of that new regulation deserves to be fined and banned, not for committing the offence but for being stupid enough to get caught.

The committee came out against withholding prize money for owners and trainer or for disqualifying the horse.

Part of the argument against this seemed to be that owners, trainers and punters were “innocent” parties and should not be adversely impacted.

I would fundamentally disagree with that stance.

The jockey is employed by the owner and trainer and it is, ultimately, their responsibility to ensure the jockey adheres by the rules. Most of the big owners are businessmen and they work within the realms of corporate governance where the employer is ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees, this is no different. I would want to see the owners and trainers percentages retained as well – that would certainly encourage them to ensure their jockey rides within the rules.

In terms of fairness to punters, let’s turn that one around. A horse wins a race by a nose with the jockey on the winner having exceeded the whip regulations.

  

Is it fair backers of the winner win because the jockey on their horse broke the rules?

Is it fair on backers of the runner-up, whose jockey abided by the rules, that they are denied a win?

There are already offences whereby a horse can be disqualified, should abuse of the whip be any different?

I do also wonder if the eight hit restriction will be workable in NH racing. Does this mean we will see more horses left at the start because a rider does not want to risk using his quota of hits to get the horse to run?

What about horses who require encouragement to jump or change a stride coming to a fence – does that mean after eight fences they will have to pull up?

Will the same five hit after the last restriction apply equally to Cartmel (over half a mile) and to Towcester (110 yards)?

Is it right to have just one more hit allowed for a three and a half mile chase than for a five furlong sprint?

The response from the BHA is jockeys agree with the eight strike limit. Have they really? Have they really though through what it means?

I have a feeling we are going to see quite a few NH jockeys before the Stewards in the coming months.

But back to the main thrust of the report.

Yes there are plenty of questions but the recommendations are a massive step in the right direction.

Time will tell as to just how successful the new changes are.

Let’s give them a go and see how they work.

Goodnight Ginger, Rest Well

As any regular readers will probably have noted, some weeks it is difficult to find something new or fresh to write about, whilst other weeks the topic hits you between the eyes and this is one such week.

The only topic worthy of any discussion is the passing of “Mr Aintree” Ginger McCain.

Of course in certain quarters there has been too much hyperbole. I have seen his death described by more than one person as tragic. Whilst his passing is certainly sad it is by no means tragic. He had, as they say, a good innings and he passed away in his sleep after a mercifully short illness, just three days short of his 81^st birthday.

It is strange but had it not been for Red Rum then, in all likelihood, McCain’s passing would probably have only warranted a paragraph or two in the Racing Post and it would not even have received a mention in the non-industry press.

But, of course, McCain was associated with the greatest horse in the history of the Grand National, indeed one of the best known horses in the history of the sport.

His record in the Grand National is unequalled, ran five, won three, second two. Think about it that is 22½ miles round Aintree jumping 150 of the Aintree fences and don’t forget the fences back in the 1970’s were even more daunting than they were now.

It has to be remembered that Red Rum was considered by many to be the villain when he won his first National. Beating the long time leader Crisp in the closing stages. A race often replayed and even 38 years later most of those watching the race again are willing Crisp over the line in front.

But it wasn’t to be and the rest, as they say, is history.

Of course McCain’s affection in the hearts and minds of the public was helped by the fact he wasn’t a big trainer with huge stables and a massive fortune in his own right.

He trained in a stables behind his car showroom in Southport, indeed he also had to “moonlight” as a taxi driver to help make ends meet. He had no purpose built gallops but he did have the natural all-weather gallops of Southport beach and it was on this beach he famously trained the great Rummy.

When he purchased Red Rum for owner Noel Le Mare he was found to be lame, Red Rum that is not Le Mare. However after an hour paddling in the sea the horse was sound, McCain believes due the minerals found in the sea water.

McCain was a blunt speaking Northerner and he believes that is why owners were not queuing up to send runner to him. As he admitted himself, “I wasn’t any good at kissing bottoms or bullshit.”

He was a man who spoke his mind and he didn’t mind being controversial although as is often the case some of the more controversial comments were made to provoke a reaction.

As he often admitted he loved baiting journalists, especially those who had not done their homework.

One of his more controversial outbursts surrounded the participation of Carrie Ford in the 2005 Grand National where he made an outspoken outburst about her participation in the race and that he would bare his buttocks if Ford ran. 

Probably the most controversial comment he made at the time was “Carrie is a fine lass but she’s a broodmare now and having kids does not get you fit to ride Grand Nationals.”

The “spat” bought priceless publicity for the race and on the day, even though she did not win, Ford had the last laugh by finishing fifth on Forrest Gunner, beating McCain’s Amberleigh House who only finished tenth.

What most did not realise, however, is the Fords were, indeed are, great family friends of the McCain’s and the spat was actually set up to generate extra publicity and add extra spice to the 2005 contest.

Of course Amberleigh House was also the horse that demonstrated McCain was not a one trick trainer in terms of the Grand Nation as he provided him with his fourth win in the race in 2004.

Following his retirement in 2007 his son Donald Jnr took up the training licence and went on to prove that McCain could not only train Grand National winning horses he could also sire a Grand National winning trainer as well.

Although he would never admit such a thing publicly, I have little doubt that McCain senior had as much pride and sense of achievement when young Donald trained Ballabriggs to win the 2011 Grand National as he ever did with any of Red Rum’s victories.

The term “character” is bandied about all too frequently and is often used in a derogatory sense.

With McCain it is true to say he was a character in every positive sense of the word. He was the sort of man we British love, the underdog going on to achieve great achievements, seemingly against all the odds.

A man not afraid to speak his mind, not afraid to court controversy but at the same time a man not afraid to stick his tongue firmly in his cheek – indeed a wind-up merchant of the first order.

For him political correctness was an anathema, although he would undoubtedly have stated that point far more strongly.

Despite the bluntness McCain was also self-depreciating never taking himself too seriously – well most of the time not.

He did care very deeply about Aintree and especially his beloved Grand National. 

He was deeply scornful of the changes which he viewed as emasculating the race – he famously said “they don’t cut 10,000 feet of the top of Everest to make it easier.”  

He despised All Weather racing, calling it “an abomination” - so he cannot be all bad    

When he was once described as a legend he retorted, “I’m no legend – I trained a legend”

Racing has lost one of its enduring and, yes, endearing characters. Aintree and Grand National day will never quite be the same. However racings loss pales into insignificance when you consider the loss to the McCain family – who have lost a husband, father and grandfather. A man who will be sadly missed but who will live on in their memories.

It’s up to Aintree now to ensure McCain is honoured appropriately. Somehow the John Smith’s Ginger McCain Grand National Steeplechase does have a certain ring to it.

I will leave the  final words to McCain who said, “I wouldn’t want to become a doddery, slobbering,  incontinent old man” – luckily for us all he did not and we can remember him for the great, once in a lifetime, character he was.

 

Goodnight Ginger, rest well.