Stewards' Cup renamed

From the Guardian:

“It was a commercial decision and we work very closely with our sponsors,” Adam Waterworth of Goodwood said of the renaming of the two races. “32Red were keen to change the name of the race and without them we could not run the 32Redsport.com Handicap for £5,000 more than last year.”
Click to expand...
 
I love how people get their knickers in a twist over these things. Of all the things in racing which are true problems, people spend hours on stuff like this.

Everyone will still call it the Stewards Cup anyway!
 
i wish people would get angry about over watering..its ruining the game for the people who's attention they already have..the form book is a nonsense with many Good & GF wins at the side of horse's names actually being Good/Soft...anyone new to the game usually gets told that the going is most important to a horse's chance of winning...and we can't even get that bit right due to this issue.

its one of the most important issues re Flat turf racing but hardly ever mentioned by people in the racing media.
 
Last edited:
There was a thing about it a few weeks ago when Richard Hughes wrote a piece in the RP saying that artificial watering was ruining courses; the BHA came out (in the RP) with self-serving stats claiming that watering was needed to prevent injuries/fatalities. Lots on Twitter about it at the time.
 
well good on him..seem to remember it mentioned..this is sort of thing i'd like to see Morning Line tackling...do something positive for the game...wonder what Rory thinks of it..he'll be their next signing i reckon;)
 
The reason why the chucking of racing's heritage in the bin is important is that it ignores the important part these races and the fact that they are memorable and historic plays in marking the salient points of the history .

The racing year is littered now with valuable handicaps named after bookmakers latest type of bet that nobody can remember or even necessarily remember what day they take place .

Consider Ascot's new valuable race day that clashes with the Sprint Cup at Haydock - it has an immensely valuable 12f handicap for 3 year olds with a name like the Ladbrokes Mobile or Internet Betting Handicap .

32 Red have form for this with the Bunbury Cup and then changed it back the following year - some have suggested this is a publicity stunt on the no publicity is bad publicity line.
 
I think the sponsors name would stick in the head more if the original name was attached to it; as it is all these names just blur into each other [or is it just the way my brain is wired?].
 
moehat said:
I think the sponsors name would stick in the head more if the original name was attached to it; as it is all these names just blur into each other [or is it just the way my brain is wired?].
Click to expand...

I agree.

Who would remember the Spillers' Handicap?

Having said that, it depends on how long-established the name of the race is. Were the Extel and PTS Laurels handicap the same race? What was the original name?

I don't think the megamoney mile handicap at Goodwood has a historical name, does it?

The Whitbread is one I think we just have to accept had to change in the sense it got its name from the sponsors (but it's still the Whitbread to me).

I think if there's no genuine history to the name it isn't a big deal but we should keep names like the Bunbury Cup, Stewards' Cup, Ayr Gold Cup, etc.

Can we really end up with the Greggs For Sausage Rolls Mile (Group 1) for 3yo colts and fillies at Newmarket on the first Saturday in May?
 
I think the rules of Pattern races say they have to have a proper name. I can't think of too many British Group flat races that are known by their sponsor rather than their 'proper' name. Probably the 'Juddmonte' is the only one often referred to solely by the sponsor name; I don't see the Racing Post Trophy referred to without 'Trophy' and the Coral-Eclipse is mostly just called the 'Eclipse' and never the 'Coral'.

Bit different over Jumps, though.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I think the rules of Pattern races say they have to have a proper name. I can't think of too many British Group flat races that are known by their sponsor rather than their 'proper' name. Probably the 'Juddmonte' is the only one often referred to solely by the sponsor name; I don't see the Racing Post Trophy referred to without 'Trophy' and the Coral-Eclipse is mostly just called the 'Eclipse' and never the 'Coral'.

Bit different over Jumps, though.
Click to expand...

The Racing Post Trophy is different as it was a new race when it started - known as the Observer Gold Cup then the William Hill Futurity .

The Whitbread has struggled because after they bailed out it did not have a proper name long before the GN became more like other long distance chases but bloated with prize money .

Group 3 and below can be given silly names so long as one then says registered as the …. afterwards .

This is particularly silly I can hardly remember the sponsor who insists on the silly name when everyone else still calls them the Fred Darling and John Porter for example .

Even sillier is Newmarket's royal arselicking and calling the Cherry Hinton after someone who has married into the royals and is plainly completely uninterested in the sport .
 
Ardross said:
Even sillier is Newmarket's royal arselicking and calling the Cherry Hinton after someone who has married into the royals and is plainly completely uninterested in the sport .
Click to expand...

Especially as we already had the Middleton Stakes :whistle:
 
Ardross said:
Even sillier is Newmarket's royal arselicking and calling the Cherry Hinton after someone who has married into the royals and is plainly completely uninterested in the sport .
Click to expand...

To be fair, they do have previous for this - the Princess Of Wales stakes is named after some Danish bint who married into the British Royal Family and had no interest in horse racing too.

I believe the opium dens were alight with disgruntled lawyers at the time.
 
simmo said:
To be fair, they do have previous for this - the Princess Of Wales stakes is named after some Danish bint who married into the British Royal Family and had no interest in horse racing too.

I believe the opium dens were alight with disgruntled lawyers at the time.
Click to expand...

Royal arselicking is easier to understand in those days especially as the then Prince of Wales was mad on racing
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I think the rules of Pattern races say they have to have a proper name. I can't think of too many British Group flat races that are known by their sponsor rather than their 'proper' name. Probably the 'Juddmonte' is the only one often referred to solely by the sponsor name; I don't see the Racing Post Trophy referred to without 'Trophy' and the Coral-Eclipse is mostly just called the 'Eclipse' and never the 'Coral'.

Bit different over Jumps, though.
Click to expand...

Only other notable one I can think of is in Ireland - the Heinz at the Curragh.
 
How do you look on the Nell Gwyn Stakes so ?
A Mary Magdalene for Royals was she not ?

Heinz known as "The Park 1500 " by a certain generation Trackside.
So with 32 Red numbers are coming back into fashion it seems.
 
Back
Top