- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Gordon ran 14 horses in the Troytown Chase, a world record. He has faced criticism from other notable trainers but I agree with his argument that if it wasn’t for him the entries would have been down to single figures. They all seem to run to their best to win so is his argument valid.
"Mum and dad cursed the day you were born"
Fair enough, as he pointed out he didn’t stop anyone from running as the race didn’t fill.
I disapprove when he runs 2 milers and no hopers in the Irish National as blockers, but there were none of his in the Troytown that didn’t deserve to be there. (Well Epson du Houx found 3 miles in that ground a bit much and bled, but he’s bred to stay anyway so not a ridiculous runner)Plus the Troytown is the biggest race his local track has in the calander, at their new festival of racing, at a time of year when his winter horses are getting really revved up to go. It would be a bit weird if “Mr staying handicap chase Ireland” didn’t have a load of runners in it.
Given the fact that Giggi (and possibly the Morans) don’t really give a stuff about hurdlers and two milers and just want to win the gold cup, then out of the hundreds of horses they buy all the has-been G1 horses end up in the XC, and the never-weres with marks a bit lower go en masse to the staying handicap chases- in Ireland if it’s before March.Michael O’Leary is on record as saying the only British races he cares about are
1 Cheltenham festival
2. Grand National
and that’s it.
He could have won a hatful of Welsh Nationals by now if he wanted to and probably a couple of Scottish ones, a Hennessy or two and maybe the odd Betfair chase. But he quite candidly doesn’t care tuppence for them.The only marginal issue i have is why Giggy have moved 4 from that race to Gordon Elliot in the first place.
They are all older and exposed. GE then ran them at like 50/1 in that race. Not Gordon’s fault, but just don’t see the point in giving a trainer with far too many exposed staying chasers, more exposed staying chasers.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!I didn’t used to have an issue with trainers having however many they wanted in races… But that was when there was only two or three from a trainer and there were more top trainers around. Am now in two minds. Nowadays Gordon Elliott and Willie Mullins often have a large percentage of the field and farm the races… And yes, I’d feel the same way if it was Nicholls or Henderson. It’s not that the outsiders are “not trying”; vast majority are. Although as others have said, one or two sometimes seem to be there to stop rival trainers taking part. I used to believe it didn’t matter as long as the better horses run, but not so sure now. Racing has become less competitive when it comes to trainers… But would it be a case of stopping these horses from running if there was a limit to numbers a trainer could run? If a restriction was in place then some of those that seemingly would be “stopped” may well be at a different trainer anyway, therefore able to run… The restriction potentially increasing the competitiveness of trainers?
With the Grand National coming down to 30 runners Willie and / or Gordon may well be odds-on to win most renewals.
Value Is Everything“With the Grand National coming down to 30 runners Willie and / or Gordon may well be odds-on to win most renewals.”
Yet the rest of the season we cry when Willie avoids racing his stars against each other
its a funny old gameBlackbeard to conquer the World
The Grand National is a handicap, Nathan. The horses running are not Mullins “stars”.
…And am not talking about restricting trainers to one runner anyway. Four on the flat and five over jumps should suffice.
And as I said, am in two minds about it. There are positives and negatives whatever is done or not done.
Value Is Everything57% of Elliott’s entries in the Troytown were owned by Gigginstown so who do we limit the owner or trainer.
"Mum and dad cursed the day you were born"
Trainer.
If the trainer is restricted then an owner with a lot of good horses with that trainer will probably have his horses with a greater number of trainers.
Value Is EverythingIs it a question of other trainers potentially with horses they could have entered now don’t bother as much because they know Elliott (in particular) will always go doubly mob handed in these staying handicap chases?
Had he had just had say a total of 6 entries for the race, would others have then pitched up with their horses to ensure a full field was reached?
Probably questions that would need to be asked of the other trainers in Ireland to find out whether knowing Elliott is going to be mob handed makes them less likely to enter.
Not sure you really want to go down the path of restricting the number of entries a trainer can have on the principle that they simply have too many qualified horses that can run in a race but maybe some tweaks can be made somewhere because the optics simply aren’t good…….but not sure how you would go about that process.
Prize money I beieve went down to the 6th place and Elliott had the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th so of the €94K on offer, his stable actually won €74k of it.
Of the 20 runners, they were split between just 5 trainers in total of which only two had more than 1 runner (De Bromhead being the other one with a whopping 3 entries).
As I said the optics are very bad and this is just for a handicap race – look at the two G1s in Ireland this weekend….of the 16 potential runners, there is a grand total of just 2 that are not trained by either Elliott or Mullins and both of those appear in the same race (the John Durkan).
While some of Elliott’s entries may have been exposed, they were hardly ancient has-beens. Many would still be pretty much a stable star in smaller training establishments.
As for why they might be transferred to Elliott, probably because exposed staying handicappers are a type of horse he does particularly well with.
I agree with LD73 that it’s not a great look for the race to be so dependent on one trainer and, to a lesser extent, one owner. But it’s hardly as if either of them are conducting a monopoly. I would be particularly wary of trying to curtail the involvement of owners as they are the lifeblood of the sport.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but would prefer it to be something that encourages others to participate more rather than something that places restrictions on those who do so already.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.