I was far from surprised to have read in the Racing Post that Richard Hughes had withdrawn his horses at Haydock due to the ground being not as expected. Nobody can do anything about the weather we know that! However, since the Jockey Club has allowed watering to maintain or improve the going, it will always be the case that someone is unhappy.

The going is no longer in the lap of the gods!

This prompted me to write about some of the problems that trainers face due to inaccurate going reports. Make no mistake the state of the ground is the most important factor when considering whether to run or not.

No doubt that a clerk of the course has a difficult job, especially when taking into account the vagaries of the British weather. However, too many of them try too hard to produce “safe ground” and tell us what we want to hear to attract runners. It does not seem to matter to them if the going is not as described. Races will take place and something will win and lose. Job done!!

I have got to a track many times and found the ground to be not as described. I have then had to decide whether to withdraw or run on unsuitable ground (on one particularly hot day a clerk had watered to produce good ground for the last race!!) I was in the first so had no option other than to scratch mine as I went there for decent ground. As usual, the owner picked up the cost of getting his horse to the track to have a non-runner!

Most British runners have to travel some distance to the races. If the ground is not as described the result always ends up with a cost to the owner with either a bad run or a withdrawal. Owners have no recourse to compensation from the track for a wasted journey. I believe if the weather has not interfered the tracks should be responsible if it is proven that the ground has been misrepresented. Therefore at least the owners will be compensated for the overzealous policies of their clerks. We have to pay the staff and the jockeys for non-runners so the tracks should take more responsibility.

On Tuesday we had our first runner on turf this season. The going was described as Good to Firm (Good in places) prior to declaration. No problem for Lucky Ava as I currently believe she wants a sound fast surface to race on. However, I had a concern that the going stick had a reading of 6.9 and had read 6.4 earlier in the week. Those of you that study these things will know that a reading with a 6 in front of it usually equates to good to soft or softer ground. I called Andrew Cooper (Epsom Clerk) on the Monday before racing as I was concerned about the reading. He assured me that the going was on the fast side of good, particularly on the straight track on which we were racing. He told me to take no notice of the going stick reading as it represents an average. I was also told that he had last watered on Friday. So I combined this information with the Met Office weather forecast and satisfied myself that the ground would be quick enough for Lucky Ava and declared her to run.

When I got to the track I walked it as I do each time I go racing (I do this even on the AW). After walking the track armed with my stick it was my opinion that going was good to soft at the very best good. The ground had clearly been watered more recently than last Friday. When I saw Andrew he admitted to me that he had watered on Monday even though he had told me differently when I called him. As a result, the going was changed to good after the first race due to the jockey’s input, despite no change in the weather. I still believe it was easier than that. This now seems to be the norm to give out a description and change it after the first race, once it has actually been raced on. By the time this happens most of us are already there with our horses and our owners. We’ve been had!!

The clerks are trying to produce “safe ground” but what is safe ground? My stables contain horses that like it quick and some that like it easy. It is therefore essential that I turn up at the track with the right horse for the conditions. I now believe that a clerk producing “safe ground” means that he or she can water indiscriminately to be able to say they had made it safe in case they have a horse fatality or injury during racing. Basically, they are covering their arses!!

I have been complaining about this for years. In general clerks on turf tracks (not all) seem hell-bent on producing overwatered, false ground with little root growth so horses wheel spin on it. So no matter what going the horses they attract prefer, they still put on a race meeting !

I had previously believed that readings from the going stick varied slightly from track to track. Now I believe that the description varies from clerk to clerk despite what the going stick reading is. The AW tracks are generally OK as we usually know what we are going to get. We still have to check the ground due to the weather and various maintenance stages the clerks put the tracks through. Each track rides differently and it is our job to get the right horse to the right track best suited to the conditions. All we ask for is an honest appraisal of what the may expect to find before we set off.

In future, I will be posting a league table of tracks going reports against what I find and a rating for each clerk of the course based on their integrity and honesty. The points will score from 0.1(poor) to 10 (excellent) very much in line with the going stick. As Andrew Cooper produced a going description at least 2 points inaccurate that was changed after the first race he will score 4 out of 10 (he scored that high as he is a nice bloke)!!

Interestingly.  The one track that still gets plenty of runners, no more than their fair share of injuries and where nobody complains about the ground is at Bath. Guess what?? They don’t have a watering system.
The ground at Bath is still in the lap of the gods!!