LETTER: Jockeys in control of how race is run.
Steve Prior does not agree that the course is the reason for the Champion Hurdle not being a true test of stamina
I take issue with Tony
Harman's letter (November 21) suggesting the Champion Hurdle is not a true test of a champion, whereas two miles at Sandown would be.
Much as I am an enormous admirer of Sandown Park, I fail to see that the way in which races at Cheltenham are run could be blamed on the course itself.
The implication is that Cheltenham does not sufficiently test a horse's stamina over two miles. Setting aside for a moment the debate about whether two miles over any course can be a real test of stamina, the way in which races are run rests squarely with the jockeys.
If a horse has bags of
stamina, why not make the running? Surely this would test the true mettle of the opposition. In the event that another runner can `lay-up' with the pace and deliver a blow up the hill-that horse cannot surely be deemed to be lacking in stamina and guts? Is Mr Harman suggesting that Istabraq, for example, is simply some fortunate Flat-bred, who has races run to suit him? And, if that is the case, more fool the other jockeys.
In actual fact, Cheltenham and Sandown provide a similar test. They are both stiff tracks that demand exceptional stamina to deliver a
Watch the finishes at both courses and you will find a horse in front off the final bend is often out-battled on the climb to the post.
If it is stamina and guts Mr Harman needs, can I suggest he attempts running at full speed up the Prestbury hill and then re-assesses his
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Racing Post (London, England)|
|Date:||Nov 30, 2001|
|Previous Article:||LETTER: Low-key approach the best option.|
|Next Article:||LETTER: Cheltenham is in a class of its own.|