At 6.50am last Saturday morning Randwick was a "good 3" as per this photo of the RISA website. It didn't dry out even one increment, to a good 2, on a fine day in the next 10 hours. Yet seven days earlier it dried out four increments in just two hours 48 minutes.

About the most interesting aspect of any day of thoroughbred racing in the modern era is to read the stewards report. If you can’t roll on the ground doing Louie The Fly impersonations a couple of times whilst reading it, you’re playing dead – although I accept “dead” is not a good term to use around the racing industry.

One only had to go to the first few words of last Saturday’s Randwick stewards report to get a good giggle. The track on RISA early Saturday morning, at 6.50am to be exact, was noted as being a “good 3”. Even though it was a beautiful fine day in Sydney that track never dried out one iota from 6.50am local time until when the last race was run at 4.50pm. Now by my maths that’s 10 hours, yet seven days before, the exact same track miraculously improved from a heavy 8 for Race 1 to a dead 5 just two hours 48 minutes later. Now I’m not real bright, but doesn’t the Randwick track have to get an upgrade in 10 hours on a fine sunny day if “they” knew what they were doing the week before?

Then if you keep reading the same stewards report Dwayne Dunn was in the proverbial after he rode that Melbourne slowcoach Huegill in the Frank Packer Plate. Interestingly "Dunny" was apparently going to have the door closed on his career for pulling that horse up had Huegill finished closer. I won’t get involved in who is right and who is wrong in the debate, but this is what was reported to the public via the stewards report.

"When questioned regarding his handling of sixth placegetter Huegill, D Dunn stated his intention had been to endeavour to track up behind Fat Al from the barriers, but Huegill stood flat-footed and missed the start by five lengths. He added that Huegill then took up a position four back on the rails trailing of Danzig King. When questioned why approaching the 500m he did not take the opportunity to shift off the back of Danzig King and improve, D Dunn agreed that he had erred in not doing so, but stated, after missing the start, he had endeavoured to save as much ground as possible and was looking to improve inside that runner. When questioned then why earlier in the straight he persisted looking to improve inside Outlaw Prince and was held up as a result, when a run was available outside that colt, D Dunn stated that he had committed himself to look for a run inside Outlaw Prince and, as that rider was carrying the whip in the right hand, he felt it would shift ground and allow him a clear passage through. This eventually occurred approaching the 200m, whereby Huegill, when placed under full pressure, only ran home fairly into sixth place. D Dunn was told that his ride from the 500m to the 300m was devoid of judgment and not in keeping with his standard as a senior rider. He was further advised that had Huegill finished its race off better, whereby the Stewards could be satisfied the tactics adopted denied Huegill a higher placing, they would have considered issuing charges of having failed to give Huegill full opportunity. Stable representative Ms C Cunningham was advised that a warning has been placed on Huegill relative to its barrier manners.”

Now Dunny and the stewards are all old enough to work their way through whether the horse was dead as a doornail, or trying its guts out. What gets me though is if stewards were even considering slamming the door on Dunny and banishing him to the wilderness for a stretch, why didn’t the same stewards get all excited after the running of the Queen Elizabeth Stakes and look at rubbing about six jockeys out, for in their report on Huegill they say “had Huegill finished its race off better, whereby the stewards could be satisfied the tactics adopted denied Huegill a higher placing, they would have considered issuing a charge of having failed to give Huegill full opportunity”.

Now I ask if that’s good enough for Dunny to cop a spray over a scrubber that also missed the start half a furlong, then how come six of the eight jockeys who rode in the Queen Elizabeth Stakes weren’t hauled in and asked questions as surely not one of their rides was “in keeping with his (or her, as Ms O'Hara rode in the race) standard as a senior rider”. Dwayne Dunn also rode in the Queen Elizabeth Stakes, but he’s excluded from being hauled in a second time in the one day, or he’ll finish up with an inferiority complex the poor bugger, as most Sydney based jockeys never get threatened with serious charges like that in the space of a full calendar year, even if they ride twice or three times a week, yet I see some shocking rides by alleged “top” riders in videos I review weekly from there.

Surely those senior riders who rode in the Queen Elizabeth Stakes should have all been hauled into the stewards room and asked some serious questions. I’ve often written that jockeys don’t have a clue how fast they are going and that race last Saturday proves it. Those seven jockeys opposed to Nash Rawiller and More Joyous let them go out their first 1400 metres in 1.30.78, which equates to 2.09.68 pace for 2000 metres. Maidens run much quicker than 2.09.68 for 2000 metres at Gatton, so how the hell were any of her opponents ever going to get close to More Joyous? They weren’t. Then all these “experts” advise the next day “she (More Joyous) can run 2000 metres”. What a lot of rot. Any horse ever born can run 2000 metres or even 3200 metres, but it’s a matter of how fast they run the 2000 metres or the 3200 metres that determines whether the horse can run a specific distance. For those who feel she can run 2000 metres, best back her now to win the Cox Plate. I think she’s a wonderfully talented mare and I’d like to see them take her to Breeders Cup race day in America to see exactly how good she is against her own gender, but as for winning a Cox Plate in her lifetime over 2040 metres, well leave me out of that plonk.

To be continued.......tomorrow.