IT was hardly surprising to learn that the Cheltenham stewards looked into the rides on Iroko and Delta Work in the Betfair Exchange Handicap Chase and the Cotswold Chase, respectively.

It was also no surprise that, despite the BHA’s Head of Stewarding Shaun Parker explaining that both rides were looked at due to the “[apparent] tender handling” given by riders Jonjo O’Neill Jr and Sean Bowen, the explanations of the jockeys were merely noted on the day.

Parker, pressed by Lydia Hislop on Racing TV to explain what noting explanations signified, explained that it left the matter open, so that it could be revisited should further evidence come to light in the future.

It doesn’t need me to tell you that the stewards do a hell of a lot of noting and precisely bugger all following up (Parker has been in his role for more than five years and couldn’t cite an example of action being taken retrospectively in one of these “open” cases), and they might just as well accept the explanations instead.

It’s rarely a good idea for a journalist to simply shout “not off!” in relation to such rides, as the late Alastair Down discovered when making his feelings known regarding the infamous ride given to Top Cees in the Swaffham Handicap at Newmarket three decades ago.

Death knell

Down’s deft penmanship has gained racing many fans over the years, but in making that particular accusation, his words inadvertently sounded the death knell for the old Sporting Life.

I’ll try to spare my editor the same anguish by merely referring to the comments made by Timeform in their summaries of those races, and then to deal with what I see as the underlying issue.

Of Iroko, Timeform’s analysis in full reads: “Iroko still has untapped potential and gave the biggest indication yet he’s building up to something bigger and better in the spring, with previous comments regarding the Grand National remaining valid; patiently ridden, travelled as well as any, still plenty to do 3 out, yet to be asked for effort when approaching straight, steadied into last 2, no further impression, not unduly punished, the stewards holding an enquiry into his performance, from which they noted explanations.”

On Delta Work, the comment reads: “Delta Work was never in contention, though his performance ‘under apparent tender handling’ was subject to a running-and-riding enquiry, his rider stating that in his view the horse had achieved his best possible placing and would benefit from a step up in trip; held up, not always fluent, lost touch 15th, plugged on straight, not given at all a hard time; he presumably has the Grand National as his main aim, this a more encouraging effort in that regard - his BHA mark is currently the same as that off which he was second to I Am Maximus in that race last spring, though that may be varied for the National.”

More to offer

Of course, riders are in a better position to know whether horses have more to offer and it’s important to get such information before drawing conclusions, but not enough is made of the specifics in the rules regarding riders making “real, timely and substantial efforts” to achieve the best placing.

“I’d have been beaten further if I’d got after him”, is a common cry in such enquiries, and a hard argument to disprove, but disproving it is not essential, which is why the rules are written as they are.

As such, even if accepting Jonjo O’Neill’s explanation regarding Iroko’s poor positioning, it was still reasonable to find him in breach of the rules, but that’s a nettle the BHA’s Stewards are reluctant to grasp.

That’s not to have a dig at O’Neill, whose job for connections regarding Iroko is geared around getting him in the right place, physically and mentally for a race of greater importance than that trifling £100,000 handicap, and there’s the rub.

Serious problem

If winning a premier handicap of such value is deemed an unsatisfactory outcome because of its impact on future races, then we have a serious problem. But it needn’t be that way.

Both Iroko and Delta Work are prominent in the betting for the Grand National, for which the weights have yet to be assigned, and the way that process takes place is nothing more than a pantomime, in my view.

It’s not unusual for leading National fancies to be campaigned with kid gloves until official marks have been handed out for that race, whereupon the gloves are, in every sense, off.

The fact that there is no penalty system in the National is another problem with this approach and encourages connections to only try in earnest, when they are immune from punishment in the handicapping sense.

Wholesale changes to the Grand National distance, fences, and qualifying criteria have effectively done away with the unique element of the contest and, last year’s running, while providing the spectacle of a host of horses still travelling well towards the race’s conclusion, was far removed from the fearsome test of jumping and stamina it once was.

Aintree factor

The “Aintree factor”, much talked about in the past, was arguably overblown in the first instance, but is simply not a reality any more, so the idea of giving the senior jumps handicapper a week or two, so he can figure out how to frame the weights for Aintree in April, needs to be called out for the absolute nonsense it is.

A couple of pounds here or there has rarely been the difference between winning and losing at Aintree, given that lengths can be won and lost at any one of 30 fences, especially with 40 runners fighting for track position, albeit with those factors now reduced in terms of their ability to make the race a lottery.

The rising quality of runner in the race makes it an ultra-competitive staying handicap for horses with fully established profiles.

As such, the need to frame the handicap 10 weeks in advance seems pointless.

It would make more sense if the current marks of all the runners are used for promotional purposes and to get an idea of what the likely field would be, but for the final weights to be based on current ratings at the final forfeit stage.

In bygone days, early-closing races were beneficial for ante-post turnover, because both punters and bookmakers knew what they were getting, but ante-post betting has massively altered since the days when you could ask your parish priest what he fancied for the spring double and expect a considered answer.

If you want the best horses running in the Grand National, judge their quality by how they are running at the time of the race, otherwise we’ll be stuck with the same old pantomime – oh yes, we will!