176 THE RACE AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES. 
owner did not win money enough on him, and I was not 
therefore the cause of his subsequent mismanagement. 
These instances havea lesson of their own. There is evi- 
dently a something in particular race-courses that alters the 
running of some horses; and what that something is, it is 
incumbent on the trainer to ascertain, if he can do so, before 
engaging them. There are certain methods which readily 
suggest themselves. Horses could be tried up hill with 
stayers, or down hill with speedy animals; or might be 
galloped across the flat at Newmarket or the reverse way 
of it: whilst on other courses, similar opportunities might 
be found, which would give some clue to the probable per- 
formance of the animal on this or the other race-course. 
As for the state of the ground itself, this is not less import- 
ant: for it has often more to do with the success or defeat of 
racehorses than many suspect or would be inclined to believe. 
Some horses cannot run on wet ground; others, when it is 
hard; some again can go well on either: whilst others are 
best when it is neither wet nor dry, but simply what is called 
“good going ’—though asa rule it should be said the majority 
are most at home when it is either one thing or the other. 
Foe Miller could run when it was hard or soft, and of this 
power he gave two remarkable instances by winning the 
Chester Cup with the ground as hard as a brick, and the 
Ascot Cup (Emperor’s Vase) when the course was partially 
submerged, as has been related; he also ran equally well 
when the ground was really good going. Speed the Plough, 
a very moderate horse, won the Criterion Stakes, beating the 
best horse in the world, when the ground was very heavy 
going. It should be noted that wet ground tells most hardly 
against the horse least trained. Oxondan, though very sound 
was ten pounds better on wet than on dry ground; which 
