Chris Cook On Constitution Hill...

I didn't plan to write about Constitution Hill. But spending time online after his race yesterday was troubling.

People who appear to be fans of racing were saying things that worried me. They had a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick and it was making them angry about things that needn't incite strong emotion.

Nicky Henderson not giving up on Constitution Hill's Flat career after San Siro fifth - and a trip to France could be next
'We've got to win a good race for them' - Nicky Henderson vows to deliver for Constitution Hill fans after sampling the San Siro good life
In particular, there were a couple of things that got repeated, which need to be challenged for racing's sake.

'It's about greed!'
Evidently, some people believe (or, at least, are prepared to assert in public) that connections of Constitution Hill are being swayed by greed in their decision-making. The implication, presumably, is that a desire to make a few more quid out of the horse is the reason he's being kept going.

Is that justified by what we saw over the weekend? Sending a horse, plus attendant staff, all the way from Lambourn to Milan is not cheap. Trainer and owner evidently made the journey as well.

Committing to a 900-mile journey, knowing that Group 1 winners lie in wait at the end of it, doesn't suggest greed to me. It is a strategy that can only have a limited chance of making a profit.
Instead, this kind of campaigning could be called ambitious or sporting. They were having a tilt at a major target, knowing they would probably miss. Racing needs that kind of attitude from owners and trainers in order to create excitement around the sport's marquee contests.

If money was the critical factor in the campaigning of this horse, I would have expected them to stay home and go for the St Simon Stakes instead, a Group 3 which was scheduled to take place at Newbury on Saturday. The prize-money would be less than in Milan but the chance of actually winning it was much higher - and the cost of taking part would have been as low as one could hope.

Those are the opportunities you seek if you're just trying to crank a few quid out of your racehorse. But Nicky Henderson and Michael Buckley wanted to try something more fun.

An accusation of greed is a hard one to counter in racing, since prize-money is intended to operate as a lure. Owners and trainers are supposed to chase the cash, that's how we get the best horses into the best races.

Money is a motivating factor here, just as it is in the rest of the world. Without money, how is anyone supposed to pay for their next horse who will help the sport to carry on?

But if greed was an issue with Constitution Hill, wouldn't we see him more often? He has never run more than five times in a calendar year.

Whether or not you agree with their choices, the people behind him are trying to find races that suit him. For racing fans to respond by bandying around a word like "greedy" is to risk damaging the sport they supposedly enjoy.

'Retire him!'
When Luke Harvey argued against calls to retire Constitution Hill during ITV Racing's show on Sunday, I thought he was doing the straw man thing, creating an argument so he could take it apart. But no, it turns out that lots of folk on social media would like to see the horse taken out of the great game and pensioned off to a muddy field.

I guess it shows how much people crave retirement. It's just assumed in these discussions that an end to working days would be a welcome change for the horse in question.

What if he enjoys his work? What if he gets bored out of his mind in that field?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of racehorses being found something else to do, past a certain stage. I don't like to see teenagers in jump races, however much enthusiasm they may retain.

But Constitution Hill is only nine and sound in wind and limb. Now that he is no longer jumping, his working day contains less risk than ever before. The remaining risk arises from running, which any horse ought to be doing at times, whether they're working or not.

Why on Earth should such a horse be retired?

"He doesn't owe us anything," comes the reply. But this is completely wrong-headed. The implication would be that other horses, who have fared less well on the track, are still paying off their debt to humans.

That's not how it is. Horses and humans work for a living, if they are lucky enough to be able to do so. It's something to be proud of, not something to flee without reason.

Behind some of the cries to retire Constitution Hill, I sense some sulking that he is no longer a hurdler. "What's the point in carrying on, if you're only doing Flat racing  - and not even top-class Flat racing!" That seems to be the thinking.

For anyone who actually enjoys Flat racing, there's no need to explain that a horse like him is making a useful contribution, whether he wins or not. Every time he runs, he adds depth and richness to the race.

Constitution Hill is still a racehorse because, even after his jumping ability has evaporated, he can still do a job to a high standard. In Milan, he finished inches behind Dubai Honour, who was runner-up in a Group 1 last month.

Maybe he can do better yet, if he's ridden a bit handier on ground with some cut. It'll be interesting to find out.
Think he has got that spot on dont you?