- This topic has 82 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
cormack15
21 Mar 2010, 00:10
by cormack15 on 21 Mar 2010, 00:10
And if he is Joncol there is nothing wrong with that at all. It’s not an amateur sport and I’d be tempted by a massive prize for what is, effectively, a staying handicap chase.Report this postQuoteThats a fair point, it is indeed a professional sport and horses need to pay their way.
However given Findlays history with horses whom have more than paid their way, I dont really think Findlay is remotely concerned with the risk involved with the National…
- Total Posts 17716
Joncol good post,
Harry Findley isn’t called The Dog for nothing, why you think his horses are in his mothers name?
There is nothing at all wrong with going after a big pot such as the prize fund for the National. I’m sure you are right, Mr Findlay would gladly accept the cheque, as, I am sure, 99.99% of the population would willingly do also. I’m equally sure the win would mean plenty to him on a non-financial basis.
As far as the ridiculous comments about how Mr Findlay looks after his horses. Lots of owners offload horses once they go into decline. And it’s hardly anything to do with him that the horse unfortunatley died after it left his ownership is it?
You may not like the cut of Mr Findlay’s gib Joncol but the comments you are making to substantiate your argument are, to be frank, quite ridiculous.
I dont really think Findlay is remotely concerned with the risk involved with the National…
Does that same comment apply to the other 39 owners who will run horses in the National, or the hundreds who have done so in the past?
David Johnson, Trevor Hemmings, Andy Stewart, etc?
You are entitled to your view but I think you are spouting nonsense.
Why ARE his horse’s in his mothers name then Mr W? And why IS he called ‘the dog’?
The answers to both questions are quite innocent but I’d very much like to hear your explanations.
If you’d prefer to avoid embarrassment you can PM me your answers.
Some seem to believe Denman should not be "risked" yet other horses should be "risked".
Surely every horse’s life should mean as much as the next? If it is wrong for Denman it ios wrong for any horse. Is one human life worth more than another?
Sadly when David Elsworth concidered running Desert Orchid he had death threats by those who did not want Dessie to run. Yet they were perfectly happy to see Rhyme And Reason run (one without the jumping ability of his stable companion).
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
As far as the ridiculous comments about how Mr Findlay looks after his horses. Lots of owners offload horses once they go into decline. And it’s hardly anything to do with him that the horse unfortunatley died after it left his ownership is it?
You could argue that point but if you use the skills I presume you obtained during you education i.e reading……you will note that I have stated that I would think that a horse whom has won its ownder over £145,000 in prize money alone deserves a decent retirement so in answer to your question..
And it’s hardly anything to do with him that the horse unfortunatley died after it left his ownership is it? Yes I would consider it his fault, this horse earned him a lot of prize money and a lot of money via betting. Its is his fault this horse is dead. He should of retired with the dignity he gained Findlay on the track..
I’d love to see Denman run in next years National as I think it’s the perfect race for him..
Surprised at how many are already writing him off and saying he’s past it…
He obviously didn’t quite reach the heights of his gold cup win the other day, but take the very impressive IC out of the equation and he’s beat the rest by about 25 lengths!
Still plenty left in the ‘tank’ yet…
- Total Posts 17716
Surely every horse’s life should mean as much as the next? If it is wrong for Denman it ios wrong for any horse. Is one human life worth more than another?
In a perfect world yes you are 100% right, but the fact remains some horses have earned their owners a lot of money and some of not.
My point is those whom have paid their way and earned their owners a lot of money, they should not be put through this risk.
Whereas with regard to horses yet to pay their way, the case can be made for their running. I.E The risk is worth the return as financial gain would mean more to these owners as they have not paid their way.
I have said already I dont like the race but I do understand the appeal, i.e big prize money.
Spot on Ginger. Denman is, philosophically, no different (or his life more intrinsically ‘valuable’ other than his earning potential) than a tailed off finisher in a selling hurdle.
We humans develop a fondness for him, and horses like him, because of his racing ability and characteristics.
And, I have to say, I’m as guilty as anyone in that regard!
- Total Posts 17716
I maintain the fact that horses who have paid their way and won the amount Denman has won should not be run in this race.
I dont agree with it, but I also understand why those who have not paid their way should be run in it. I.E The risk should be taken as they have not paid their way and as such the risk is worth the possible financial gain to pay for its training fees and its retirement. Unfortunately without taking this risk the horse may have an uncertain future as the owner may no longer be able to afford its fees and may end up selling.
So, Joncol, as I see it the essence of your argument is that…
Horse A – has run well in a couple of big races and earned a few quid – he ahould be ‘spared’ the risk of a national run.
Horse B – tries his heart out but not quite as good as Horse A, has still to win decent money, you’re quite happy for him to be pitched into the fray at Aintree.
Totally illogical.
I think what you are trying to say is that a horse who has had a long and illustrious career is not perhaps the ideal candidate in a race where, the stats will show, the risks of serious injury are a bit greater than on ‘normal’ courses with ‘normal’ fences and field sizes.
I’m sure plenty agree but I don’t see anything wrong with running Denman. I’ll tell you what, he’ll be a good deal more equipped for the test than plenty others who will line up on the day.
And, as it’s your first night on the forum a quick heads-up, smart-***e comments such as
You could argue that point but if you use the skills I presume you obtained during you education i.e reading..
will endear you to no one and will ensure your stay on this forum is of a very brief duration.
- Total Posts 17716
Please take the time to actually read my posts.
This is my fifth time stating I dont agree with the race but I can understand those who do run their horses i.e it is an extremely rich race and therefore those horses who have failed to pay their way must take their chance in order to secure their future training.
If you read my posts it will clear it the confusion for you
- Total Posts 17716
"I think what you are trying to say is that a horse who has had a long and illustrious career is not perhaps the ideal candidate in a race where, the stats will show, the risks of serious injury are a bit greater than on ‘normal’ courses with ‘normal’ fences and field sizes."
No Cormac yet again you have misread my posts.
My point is very simple and I will try to simplify it.
Horss whom have won a lot of prize money should not be risked in this race, they have paid their way and have paid for future training fees and retirement
Whilst I dont agree with the race I do understand those whom opt to run their horses whom have not paid theur way and have not secured their future training fees and retirement.
Whilst you do not agree with me I have the cleary stated points are easy for you to now understand
So what about Mon Mome or Comply Or Die haven’t they already deserved a retirement?
What about all the Cheltenham winners this week. Should they all be risked in continuing their careers? They have all earnt their connections enough.
The "risk" in the Grand National is exaggerated anyway. Thankfully, it is not the risk it once was since all the modifications.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
I have already said I dont actually agree with the race.
So im afraid I would have to disagree with the owners for running the horses you have mentioned, I dont like it.
But I dont own them so its not my choice.
This topic however is with regard to Denman. And I have already stated if I owned Denamn I would take much plessure in seeing him safely retired for me to visit for years on rather than taking the risk in the National , he could well win it but the risk wouldnt justify it for me. I would rather be safe in the knowledge he can retire rather than win the National…
Thank you for clearing that up for me Joncol, I was having difficulty comprehending there for a few posts.
So, should we have an earnings limit for the National? If they’ve won, say, 50K should they be disqualified from the race. One big win and that’s the end of the career.
No Red Rum, L’Escargot, etc.
Abosolute rubbish but I can see I’m onto a loser attempting to argue this out to its natural conclusion so I’ll bow out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.