Champions Day and its place in the European Pattern

some interesting thoughts from Lydia Hislop on the sportinglife website today:

[The creation of] Champions Day has caused all sorts of upheaval, the repercussions of (and reproaches for) which are still ongoing.

And yet the day itself is a good idea, even if it doesn't ever quite achieve its own full ambitions. It is a rousing end to the domestic campaign of the international-facing older European-trained horse. It is a top-class day's racing conducted in an atmosphere that conveys importance but also celebration. It is exciting. It is fun.

What it is not and will never be is the only option for every horse you'd ideally like to run there. Horses with an edge at a mile-and-a-half will naturally be trained for the Arc. Owners and breeders with ambitions to crack the American bloodstock market will (in the medium term at least) look to the Breeders' Cup. The real money in this sport is in breeding, now matter how much you chuck at a day's racing.

The first two editions of Champions' Day were blessed not only with the phenomenon of Frankel, the best racehorse I've ever seen - perhaps the best ever - but also by the lucky fact he was trained by Sir Henry Cecil. He was rarely tempted by what America had to offer and certainly did not deem the Breeders' Cup an appropriate target for the horse he knew so minutely.

Which is not to say either Champions Days to date were only about one horse, even if they were overwhelmingly about him. Cirrus Des Aigles, Excelebration, Nathaniel, Immortal Verse, So You Think and Snow Fairy made for a couple of stellar casts. If you have Fame And Glory, Deacon Blues, Dancing Rain and Rite Of Passage in small print on the promotional poster, you know it's special.

Clearly, its position in the calendar is a high-risk affair. Coming after the big weekends in Ireland and France (as it will more explicitly in future) might lend finality or crescendo. Yet, as Cheltenham will point out with regard to Aintree and Punchestown, that logic doesn't necessarily follow.

What it undoubtedly does risk is bad weather affecting play. It threatened to with soft ground last year, but we - and Frankel - got away with it. This year, we haven't been so lucky: Declaration Of War, Toronado, Sky Lantern, Trading Leather and The Fugue were all ruled out of Champions Day due to the prevailing weather. If you site the day in mid-October, that's going to happen.

So move it. Not so simple, if we want to stay on good terms with the rest of Europe or, more accurately, with France and Ireland. Every change to a Group race - date, distance, venue - has to meet the approval of the European Pattern Committee, which attempts to balance the desires of its constituent countries to make their united calendar work to the objective benefit of the European-trained horse.

Sit down, Nigel Farage. Your work here is done. It's as trendy as talk of a referendum to propose leaving the European Pattern. For example, John Gosden has spoken about it. "It is nearly 40 years old and I rather think it belongs to a bygone era. It's probably got a bit overblown," he said.

Let's stop and think about what this would actually mean. We could put Champions Day where we like; mid-September, perhaps. We could instantly make the Sprint and Long Distance Cup Group Ones. In fact, we could rip up the entire British Pattern and re-fashion it how and where we liked. (Obviously, we'd all agree on the details, wouldn't we?)

But there would also be nothing to stop Ireland placing (or, rather, keeping) the Irish Champion Stakes on or adjacent to the same weekend. Or France routinely clashing its best races with our own. So be it, you say. May the best race win. In every case, for every Group race in the calendar, may the best race in Europe win. Good luck with that, everyone. Good luck with that, Epsom. Good luck, Sandown. Good luck, Newbury and Doncaster. Among others.

It might in practice mostly mean may the race with the most money win, which is fine while you're minted. (We're all feeling financially flush at the moment, after all...)

Yet it would be arrogant to assume a sponsor will stick around forever. It's all very well that we've grown a foot taller with the engaging, long-term and munificent backing of QIPCO, but is it wise to be instantly throwing our weight around in the playground? What happens if (when) the others catch up? Or we fall?

Also, can anyone plausibly argue the arms-race that a unilateral approach to the Pattern would inspire is an objectively good thing for the horse? If different countries try to out-muscle each other from the prime calendar spots with similar races, how will the racehorse benefit? One or two might win a bit more prize money in one race, but they will lack structure to their seasons.

Furthermore, calling a race a Group One would not make it a Group One even if the prize money justifies it. It needs Group One horses to be running in it; otherwise it's a sham. The European Pattern currently exerts checks and balances that should make every Group race earn its billing.

Granted, these rules could be enforced more rigorously but the net result of removing them entirely and permitting individual countries - even, more terrifyingly, individual racecourses - to run their own Group races is likely to make the Pattern more, not less, "overblown".

Breaking from the European Pattern would also undermine the consensus achieved on matters of handicapping and weight-for-age. Again, you might argue some short-term advantages, but the reality would be an anarchic, impractical and confusing tug-of-war.

Given it is the participation of horses trained in Ireland and France (and, perhaps increasingly in the future, Germany) on which British Champions Day greatly relies, any move that divides the attention of those key horses, their owners and breeders - as well as Britain's own - is surely self-defeating?

In requiring conversation and a degree of consensus to make changes, the European Pattern makes itself and its individual components more robust. Even if it is annoying and restricting to be forced to discuss and negotiate, its endgame is more lasting and constructive for this worldwide sport.