A few years back, on what I think was the first evening of the Galway Races, a trainer who had just seen his steed come up the Ballybrit hill in front was heard to remark “At least my horses come here on their merits, not like others who work the system to their advantage”. You knew what they meant, a fair stab could be had at who they were referring to, but one couldn’t help wondering was that the best time to be raising such issues.
Especially because the individual at whom the barb was aimed has been making their own sheet music with which to entertain a particular audience for so long they need any extra assistance.
So in essence, the pontificator’s point was moot. Moreover, there are very few squeaky clean closets out there. It’s just a bit odd that a few in particular seem to be almost hand picked at times which would undoubtedly be the most damaging to the individuals involved.
Around the times of the Festivals. Cheltenham, Punchestown, Galway, Listowel. In racing parlance, follow the form lines and it’s not difficult to see a pattern emerging. A two tier system would be putting it mildly.
Mind you, the ironic thing is, by scapegoating those they have decided to go after, racing’s higher echelons at the very least run the risk of biting the hands that feed them. I know if I were some of those at the butt end of the opprobrium, they’d be good and hungry by the time they were invited back to the table.
Put simply, the sanction handed down to John ‘Shark’ Hanlon – a ten month ban with half of it suspened – was wholly disproportionate to the ‘offence’ the gentle giant from Kilkenny was indicted for.
For those not up to speed with the case – and to be honest this corner knew nothing of it until the headline was encountered yesterday – as far as can be gathered, a trailer was being towed behind ‘Shark’s horsebox, whereon there was the remains of a deceased horse and at some point in the journey, the tarp covering the equine corpse slipped. Thus exposing it to full view.
Not ideal, I’ll give you that, but to label it “gross negligence” appears excessive in the extreme. It’s not as if the deceased was left totally uncovered. Or, indeed, that the tarp was deliberately left loose so as to ensure the mortal remains of the horse would be on public display.
Alas, common sense very seldom lives up to its name. There are two questions, which I’d love to know the answers to but will probably which will probably never be asked. And which, even if they were, the chances of a truthful answer being supplied are up there with those of warm snowballs.
(i) Were the views of the owners of the horse in question sought and made known?
(ii) Who was the party or were the parties who reported the incident to kick up the storm in the first place? Some people just get their kicks out of causing sh** for other people.
For the record here, this piece was not constructed to, in any way, shape or form, condone what happened to the remains of the animal. My contention would simply be that (a) such is the affinity that anybody who works with animals has for those in their care that they couldn’t countenance mistreating one of them – even in death. And (b) the suspension handed down was so disproportionately long in terms of what actually took place and in comparison to other lengthy bans administered in other high profile cases caused solely by people’s seemingly unending necessity and/or perceived right to feel outraged about stuff. And even it was blown out of all proportion at the end.
Yet there were certain other matters swept under a carpet that must be so bulging now you’d need a ring roller to flatten it.