Not A Brough Scott Fan Then, Henry

Diamond Geezer

Diamond Geezer

Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,884
Statement regarding 'Henry Cecil, Trainer of Genius' by Brough Scott

Almost daily I am sent pictures of Frankel, the Frankel book, racecards or even copies of On The Level (a book from the past about me) – all of which I am more than happy to sign. However, I am unable to say the same regarding Brough Scott's book about me, which is due to be published shortly, and I feel it is important to explain why as I have already started receiving requests to sign it.
Over the years I have been asked by countless people, including Brough Scott, if they could write my biography. As there have been some unhappy and difficult phases in my life, for the sake of my family, especially my children, I have always said no. However, when Brough Scott visited me the year before last and told me that the Racing Post wanted him to write a tribute book about my training career in the same style as the Tony McCoy book (that he edited) I agreed, albeit with reservations.
I made it very clear to Brough Scott that it was not to include certain areas of my life. I do not like to look back and prefer to look to the future. With horses to train and my ongoing treatment, I explained to Brough Scott that I did not have the time to go through the history of my training career. To assist him with the necessary research Brough Scott was therefore given a huge amount of access to my family, friends and staff – both old and current.
At no point did Brough Scott explain to me that the concept of the book had changed to include some unhappy and difficult phases in my life that I had told him to leave and that I would have to trust him to tell the story as best he could.
If Brough Scott had come to me to explain this change I would have undoubtedly withdrawn my cooperation and I am sure my family and friends would have followed suit. Brough Scott would also not have continued to enjoy the unparalleled access he had to Warren Place and Frankel.
Although I see some editing has been done I feel there is still a large amount of needless focus on my private life. On the whole I also found the book rather boring and lacking in humour – something which I hope I am not!
It is such a shame as Brough Scott has obviously put a lot of time and effort into the book and there are interesting parts. Nonetheless, I cannot express my disappointment strongly enough.
I hope people will understand why I find it all so upsetting and hurtful for my family – and realise the reasons why I cannot endorse the book and do not want to sign it. I am very anxious to avoid people the disappointment and cost of sending me copies to be signed as this is not something which I am comfortable about doing. I do not wish to discuss this book any further. I want to put this stressful experience behind me and concentrate on being healthy and training my horses.

Sir Henry Cecil
April 2013
 
Oh dear .

Surely Brough should have decided to write an unauthorised biography and taken the hit as far as access to HRAC's papers and archive . It doesn't sound good - I await hearing what Brough has to say .
 
Don't know about anyone else but I'm far more likely to read it now then when I thought it was a straightforward hagiography.
 
Ah well. Sir Henry enjoyed my book. Must mean its rubbish, but at least you can get it signed. (After buying a copy)
 
Publicity stunt? probably not but won't do sales any harm.

Sir Henry is thinking too much.

No one is going to think any less of him just because he went off the rails for a while. Quite the opposite.

Sir Henry came back from the grave. Almost dead and buried as far as racing was concerned.

He fought his way back to the very top and to top it all turned out Frankel 14 times in perfect condition to become the greatest horse in the history of the game.

To get the message through to the reader just how difficult the job was that faced Sir Henry to get back on top , then Brough Scott must tell the whole story as it was.

I think Sir Henry underestimates just how much people admire him despite his indiscretions which are nothing more than water under the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
To get the message through to the reader just how difficult the job was that faced Sir Henry to get back on top , then Brough Scott must tell the whole story as it was.

I think Sir Henry underestimates just how much people admire him despite his indiscretions which are nothing more than water under the bridge.
Click to expand...

I agree. Well put.
 
Tanlic said:
Publicity stunt? probably not but won't do sales any harm.

Sir Henry is thinking too much.

No one is going to think any less of him just because he went off the rails for a while. Quite the opposite.

Sir Henry came back from the grave. Almost dead and buried as far as racing was concerned.

He fought his way back to the very top and to top it all turned out Frankel 14 times in perfect condition to become the greatest horse in the history of the game.

To get the message through to the reader just how difficult the job was that faced Sir Henry to get back on top , then Brough Scott must tell the whole story as it was.

I think Sir Henry underestimates just how much people admire him despite his indiscretions which are nothing more than water under the bridge.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, its why the comeback was/has been so special, and not just with Frankel
 
I understand what Tanlic is saying,and agree that to tell the story really you'd want to tell the whole thing to give the balanced view of the amazing success that has come back to him - but, if BS was asked to not write about the "personal issues" that have gone on in his life, then I agree with Aragorn - BS was completely out of line.
 
Last edited:
Fair comment but it would be mighty difficult to ignore all the personal issues Sir Henry had to write any kind of a tribute apart from a copy of Racing Post stats.
The peaks and troughs in his career take some explaining surely.
 
I'm totally with Trudi and Aragorn.

Had BS gone ahead and written an unauthorised biography, without asking for the cooperation of HC and his family and friends, if he wanted to stick the personal stuff in, that would be up to him. It seems that he didn't and that he had access to sources that he would otherwise not have done on the understanding that he treated the difficult stuff in a certain manner. To change course midway (and BS has admitted that he did, apparently because of the success of Frankel) was underhand and lacks respect for Sir Henry. I don't care if it makes the book a better read.
 
It's a trust issue - Sir Henry trusted Scott and he has abused that. The book should not have been published in my opinion as he was not happy with the content.

Much as I would like to read the story 'warts and all', if Sir Henry wishes certain information to remain private his wishes should be respected.
 
Brough Scott has been a great adversary over the years. He won the Clive Graham Trophy plus he was voted Horse Racing Journalist of the Year just a couple of years ago.

He's managed to feed himself for over 50 years was a damn good jockey, has written for major papers like the Times, gained major praise for his work in TV and was awarded an MBE and you guys think he's a boring writer.......get a life ffs.
 
Brough Scott,Steve Dennis,Lee Motorhead -all bore me-it doesn't matter what they did 10 or 20 years ago I find their articles in the RP smug and boring.Down and Willoughby could also be included.
 
Tanlic said:
Brough Scott has been a great adversary over the years. He won the Clive Graham Trophy plus he was voted Horse Racing Journalist of the Year just a couple of years ago.

He's managed to feed himself for over 50 years was a damn good jockey, has written for major papers like the Times, gained major praise for his work in TV and was awarded an MBE and you guys think he's a boring writer.......get a life ffs.
Click to expand...

Why should any of that contribute to a persons opinion on whether or not he is a boring writer?
 
Tanlic said:
Brough Scott has been a great adversary over the years. He won the Clive Graham Trophy plus he was voted Horse Racing Journalist of the Year just a couple of years ago.

He's managed to feed himself for over 50 years was a damn good jockey, has written for major papers like the Times, gained major praise for his work in TV and was awarded an MBE and you guys think he's a boring writer.......get a life ffs.
Click to expand...

Barry Malinow has had a stellar singing career for 50 years and he is still shite.

Benny Hill was a very successful comedian for years. He was as funny as a frontal lobotomy.

Success does not always equal talent.
 
Brough Scott is pretty good at doing this sort of thing and doesn’t write for the vanity of himself or his subject. Cecil finds this sort of stuff excruciatingly embarrassing, which is why he has resisted publication for so long. He is not proud of certain phases in his life/career and would have liked to avoid airing them. But the book is not a PR exercise for the Cecil yard, the writer needs to be as honest as he can be. If it lacks humour and sparkle we can’t write brilliantly all of the time (some of us never). I suspect people will come to love the warts and all version of Cecil more than the sanitised version. So don’t be too hard on Brough or Henry, they both have different expectations about it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top