Bold move by Epsom in attempt to breathe new life into the Derby For people of my vintage the Epsom Derby was the absolute pinnacle of equine achievement. It was the most important horse race on the planet and helped define the breed. The Derby winner gained instant fame. Names like Sir Ivor, Nijinsky, Mill Reef, Roberto, Grundy, The Minstrel and Shergar still have an almost mystical aura attached to them. But times change and these mile and a half champions are no longer fashionable. The sport now values speed over stamina and recent Epsom Derby winners are rarely considered anything other than ordinary. The most recent winners - Anthony Van Dyck, Serpentine, Adayar, Desert Crown, Auguste Rodin, City Of Troy and Lambourn - no longer have the status of household names and it is obvious to almost all that the great race has lost much of its lustre. Historically the race attracted crowds in the hundreds of thousands in the early part of the last century, but attendances have been in steep decline for a quarter of a century. The 2001 running of the Epsom derby was watched by a crowd of over 53,000, but by this year’s renewal that number had dipped below 23,000. The racecourse hasn’t given up on its flagship event and last week announced a new £6 million five-year-plan in an attempt to restore the race to its former glory. Perhaps it is too little too late and there is no way of saving a contest when it is in this spiral of decline, but it has got to be positive to see the racecourse making a real effort to breathe new life into the once great race. Article highlights: Epsom Derby has seen attendance drop dramatically from 53,000 in 2001 to under 23,000 in the most recent race A new £6 million five-year plan aims to restore the Derby to its former prominence The racecourse has partnered with Frank Warren's boxing promotions company to bring fresh energy to the event Recent Derby winners no longer achieve the household name status of past champions A Bold Partnership Aside from the obligatory prize money increase and extending that prize money down to tenth place the racecourse has also teamed up with Frank Warren’s boxing promotions company Queensberry Promotions. This is a very interesting move. We have seen other sports such as boxing, darts and cricket reinvent themselves and if this were to work for the Epsom Derby it could be used as a template across the entire sport. Horse racing has always been strong on tradition, but consistently falls short when it tries to reinvent itself with contrived narratives such as the failed Racing League or Shergar Cup. Maybe the air of ‘gangster chic’ that Warren will bring can hit the mark where others have failed. There is no doubt he has been extremely successful in the boxing ranks, but his career in promoting that sport has been accompanied by its fair share of controversy. Warren was nearly killed in a gun attack in 1989 and more recently was co-promotor of the infamous boxing event at the Regency Hotel in Dublin in 2016 which resulted in the high-profile assasination of criminal David Byrne. Frank Warren is the son of a bookmaker, so should have a reasonable understanding of the horse racing game, but with former associates such as Daniel Kinahan he is not the most obvious bedfellow for the Jockey Club. That said, he will undoubtedly bring a fresh new approach to the promotion of the event. In a video published by Queensberry Promotions on social media last week to launch the new partnership with Epsom Racecourse Warren says “once we’re out of the stalls, there’s no reining us in.” Let’s hope for Epsom’s sake this arrangement works well because as Warren indicates there may be no way of putting this particular genie back in the bottle if it does go wrong. Racing Officials and Judgment Calls Changing the subject, two recent IHRB Hearings reminded me of an occasion many years ago when I was stopped by the Gardai in Maynooth while driving home from Fairyhouse races. The Guards told me they had received a phone call from the driver of a car that had been travelling behind me. That driver said a manoeuvre I had made was “the most dangerous piece of driving he had ever seen.” In reality it was barely an incident at all. I had been stuck behind a horsebox and car on the narrow twisting road between Dunboyne and Maynooth. When I got to a spot where overtaking was permitted I edged out to see if the road was clear, but a car was coming in the opposite direction. The oncoming driver presumed I was going to continue coming out and swerved onto the hard shoulder on their side which sent a plume of gravel and dust into the air. I moved back in, the other car drove on, end of incident. What really surprised me was that the Guards were intent on taking the word of a member of the public when they hadn’t witnessed the incident. More importantly, there was no indication that this member of the public was qualified to determine the difference between careless, reckless and dangerous driving, but that didn’t deter the Guards and they went ahead and charged me with dangerous driving. In the end they dropped the case when the member of the public decided not to make a formal statement, but it was nonetheless a worrying few days. Since then I have often wondered where you draw the lines between the different grades of offence such as careless, reckless and dangerous, whether that be someone driving a car or a jockey riding a horse. I presume the Dundalk stewards are also grappling with the same question. Twice last week their verdicts on recent riding incidents were called into question at IHRB Hearings and both times the original decisions they had made were deemed to have been wrong. On 14 November the Dundalk stewards held an enquiry into the circumstances leading to the fall of Just Another Eagle and rider Robyn Donaghue-Leahy in an apprentice riders’ handicap at the course. On the day the steward interviewed three riders in relation to the incident, including Jack Cleary who “stated that he maintained a true line, felt he had plenty of room and caused no interference” and watched a recording of the race, but took no further action. A senior IHRB official was not happy with that outcome and referred the matter on, asking the Referral Committee to consider whether or not a breach of Rule 214 had occurred. The Referral Committee interviewed the same three riders and also watched a recording of the race, but came to a very different conclusion. They found that Cleary had ridden carelessly and suspended him for 6 days. On 28 November the Dundalk stewards decided that Killian Leonard was guilty of careless riding after an incident in the early stages of a race at the course and suspended him for 6 days. Leonard appealed that decision, explaining at last week’s Appeal hearing that “it got congested and despite his best efforts to take his mount back, things got a little tight for the horse on his inside but Mr Leonard stated that it was not as a result of interference caused by him.” The Appeals body agreed with Leonard’s version of events and deemed the raceday stewards at Dundalk had made another error. It is concerning that the Dundalk stewards are making such errors, particularly in the case of a serious incident where a horse fell.
