- This topic has 148 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How do you know he "hasn’t missed any serious work"?
Aidan O Brien has just told the public that Steinbeck will miss a fortnights work,in that period the horse would have done 1 piece of serious work and 1 canter!Because of this he has ruled him out of the 2000 gns! Did Binocular win like a horse who has missed any Serious work Ginge? By the way Steinbeck hasn"t gone to a 1000 on the machine just yet,he"s 75 and yet a confirmed Non-runner,perhaps he will do a Binocular/Forpady and make a miraculous recovery once he touches 3 figures,i can see a trend forming!
Fist – Cav’s issue is NOT with what Bolger or Henderson did or didn’t do or should have done – it is about the journalistic (mis)treatment of one and not the other.
What sort of treatment from the media did Tom Taaffe get when KK was reintroduced into the Gold Cup in 2005.
Dear Lydia Hislop
Once again thanks for the reply.
I didnt see your broadcast from Newbury on the 5th on March so I cant comment on it I’m afraid. I agree there are differences in both cases, but circumstancial differences only.
At length in your reply you list circumstance to defend Henderson , yet you ignore circumstance with the Bolger case. It is entirely plausible and imo highly probable that the decision to run New Approach in the 2008 Derby was made by the Ruler of Dubai and that Bolger had absolutely no veto on the decision taken. While both men can justifiably be seen as victims of circumstance, both trainers can rightly be accused of a total PR balls-up, at the expense of the sport. Only one was rounded on by the racing media for that balls-up. I commended you then as I commend you now for how you tackled the New Approach story. You alone questioned the trainer and issue, fiercely but fairly and defended the betting public without the need for insults or the latent xenophobia displayed by some of your press room colleagues.The statements made by both trainers are identical in that they are both unequivocal in stating that their horses would not run in the races in question.
According to Henderson, he was told he had an ill horse and then was told that the initial diagnosis had not withstood closer scrutiny. This would be an entirely legitimate basis for a change of plan for a horse, albeit a dramatic one, in my opinion.
Jim McGrath in last Wednesdays Telegraph wrote…
But there was one other crucial influence that McManus exerted. On Feb 17, when Nicky Henderson announced that it was unlikely (notice how McGrath has changed the words of Hendersons statement to "unlikely") the horse would run, the trainer received a telephone call from Weatherbys asking if he would like to officially scratch the horse from the Champion Hurdle. He declined.
"I spoke to J P and he said we should leave him in as that gave us the option to run if we changed our minds," said Henderson. "The bone scan had revealed nothing physically wrong and the treatments for the horse were continuing. The horse certainly had a weird preparation. If it had been left to me, I would probably have taken him for racecourse gallops and wrecked him."Henderson could have picked up the phone after speaking to McManus, called the Racing Post and immediately informed the racing public that he had just spoken to the horses owner and a decision to leave Binocular in the race had been taken but his participation reamined doubtful or 50/50 at most. Henderson never did this! He left everyone in the dark until March 4th, over 2 weeks after a decision to not withdraw the horse from the Champion Hurdle had been made. In the post Champion Hurdle press conference Henderson stated "if we persevered we werent going to do any harm". Why didn’t you tell us you were persevering Nicky? You told us the horse was being put away for the season yet in your press conference you state "I kept them informed of exaclty what we were doing". You did no such thing!
Why are the brave lions(ess’s) who were so quick to maul Jim Bolger over inaccuracies and changes to previously made definative statements, so reluctant to do it now with Henderson in light of the glaring inaccuracies I’ve listed above?
Regarding antepost betting…..
"At odds wildly disproportionate to a horse’s chance, each side of the transaction may believe they know more than those who match them about the fact/chance of a horse running (or else its chances of winning, not penetrable in the form)."
In amongst the thieving and nicking references I’m glad you’ve mentioned the words "odds" and "chance". What lay odds would you offer on the following statement issued by the one of the leading trainers in the land…
"We have unfortunately decided to put him away for the season to ensure he can begin next term as normal and 100 per cent for a full campaign, which we obviously hope will lead us back to Champion Hurdle"
Taking the trainer at his word, believing that what he says is what he will do, I’d have said a 999 lay was value myself. Or do we have to factor in that Henderson is 50% a liar and only offer a double digit lay? Or is he 75% untrustworthy, what odds then? Is this how the betting public are supposed to approach their antepost betting, by deciding how much a put away merchant the trainer is? I presume you have no idea who laid the long odds bets or what their reasoning was for doing so, thus I think your haste in descriptions of "thieving" and " nicking" are entirely uncalled for. Granted you havent condescended to the "repellant" adjective employed by the puritanical Alan Lee in his Times article yesterday.
I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk.
Oh you had more than sympathy, Lydia. In the Bolger case, you commendably stated punters would be "savegely reproachful", the possibility of "perhaps irreparable " damage to the sport, the "whole house of cards falling down". Antepost punters who backed runners after Binocular was declared out, who took shorter prices compared to when he was declared back in, or who were deprived of backing a winner unless they thought the trainer was a total liar have had the goalposts moved in exactly the same manner as Derby 2008 punters.
Yet this time around save for a disclaimer "all bets are a risk" complete silence for the punters who have have been shafted by Hendersons "unequivocal" statement of Feb 17th. I don’t get it Lydia.
Regarding your journalistic integrity…
At a time when I’m asking myself amongst others…
Why should I be paying good subscription money to a channel whose presenter of the year, seconds after the race, almost trips over himself to defend the Alan Jones stunt at Wincanton recently?
Why should I be watching racing where the pre and post race comments of Phil Kinsella (Mac Aeda) directly contradict each other, but are never questioned, after the horse has in my opinion been deliberatley kept out of the places?
Why should I buy the trade newspaper when one of its main writers uses its pages to regale us all with tales of his profit from an insider gamble on a duckegg horse?…
In short, why should I be wasting my time on this "sport"?
…your post race Champion Hurdle comments were the straw that broke the camels back. True you are being singled out this time, but only beacuse of the comendable position you took the last time that this happened. Racing journalism in the UK and Ireland is almost exclusively deviod of any meaninful critical analysis of its human protaganists and is in my opinion largely populated by a collection of zero concious insiders, head in the cloud puritans, bullshitters, hangers-on, bookmaker front men, and self publicists. On the whole only youself and Greg Wood consistantly emerge as having the talent, ability and professional conscience to relate stories of racings horses, people, politics and funding in a crediable way to me, a racing outsider but fully paid up racing customer.
For people who cant read between the lines, this is a thread of disapointment. The big picture with all of this tells me that certain sections of the racing fraternity are beyond any sort of meaningful media scrutiny. I find that incredibly disappointing. How does the sport attract new customers or even keep existing ones when its upper echelons do what they like without question the vast majority of the time? What sort of future has a sport in this day and age whose media coverage largely resembles that of North Korea? Whose critics are described as "repellent".
I wish you continued success in your career, Lydia, however I do not accept your rebuttal on this occasion.
Best regards
Paul Fitzgerald (a mostly ex customer of racing)
Cav has it absolutely spot on and IMHO I’m finding it very difficult to understand how anybody can say Henderson did nothing wrong.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this thread, full praise to both Cav and Lydia for offering us some intelligent, analytical and reasoned debate. A very good read by two highly articulate individuals. I am in awe and admiration.
KIt is a good thread – but, while I can sympathise with a lot of what Paul is saying, it is rather unfortunate that he has singled out Lydia Hislop on an issue of integrity – as he himself recognises, she is one of the few that genuinely possesses any in this profession.
- Total Posts 17716
Fist wrote..Anyone who thinks Nicky Henderson did anything wrong is a being silly…
Am I right in thinking you were on Binocular, Fist? If so, I can only imagine your objectivity with regard to Cav’s opinion is rather distorted, so much so that I feel you were rather intemperate in responding to his words in the ungenerous of spirit way that you did.
I can see exactly where Cav is coming from and rather than applaud Henderson both he and McManus deserve to be ‘warned off’ for appearing to have taken advantage of a flawed system. Once a trainer states that his horse is unlikely to run, all ante-post bets on that horse should be null and void and it should be precluded from any revised ante-post markets thereafter, only running on the basis of it being available for SP bets. This will avoid any suggestion of malpractice and skullduggery, as some might dare to suggest happened in the case of Binocular.Whether or not I backed Binocular or not is not the issue here.
What you are saying is the Nicky Henderson and JP McMaunus
concocted a scheme to defraud the bookmakers and punters.And you say my response is ungenerous? Yours may friend is bordering on slander. They only appear to have taken advantage of the system to people with twisted minds.
I think Nicky Henderson, JP McMaunus and AP McCoy have a lot more respect for themselves than get involved in anything criminal.
I think you and your friend should grow up and get a grip on reality.
Taking advantage of the sytem my backside….geezus where do you sweetie wives get these ideas from??
You might think it is a superb piece.
I call it nonsence bordering on criminal.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Nicky Henderson is as honest as they come, I’ve got him on camera 3-4 hours before the race saying " This season hasn’t been plain sailing, Binocular hadn’t pleased us or necessarily anybody through the season, even when he won at Sandown his jumping wasn’t what it normally was, we actually virtually said we’d leave him for the season and wait for next year and get everything right but he seems to have come right from a lot of help from a lot of people and the last fortnight has been very good since and he’s come back into the playing field"
Top man, he wouldn’t have run if he was still not showing himself at home but horses are animals and they have feelings, bad days and good days just a shame betting can make anyone look like a fraud these days
What if I were an athlete in training for the London Marathon. I feel something is physically wrong, whether muscular or bone or whatever.
I go to my GP and he says I have something fundamentally wrong with my bones.
So I tell the whole world "I will not race in the Marathon and will instead recuperate for next season".
I then go to a specialist who tells me the examinaion can’t find anything wrong. Though there may be something that is impossible to detect.
I decide to start training again, but not to tell anyone until I know there is a fair (only fair, not certain but fair)chance of racing in London. As I am very skeptical of making it.
With the progress maintained, feeling and training much better I contact the media and inform them I might (not definate, but might) now be able to run in the London Marathon.
Question:
Was Ilieing
when I said I will not race in the Marathon"?
Lydia has already said the two are completely different because Bolger had more than one alternative for New Approach who was in A1 condition. Henderson had only one target for Binocular who was not in A1 condition.
Cav castigates Lydia for not treating Bolger and Henderson the same, as the differences are "circumstancual". But on the evidence that is at best circumstancual, Cav wants to brand Henderson as a liar.
In my opinion that is pathetic.
Cav,
In the first post there is an attack on Lydia’s integrity. "A journalist made of straw" etc. Yet in your answer to Lydia, this integrity issue is defended by you, by attacking other journalists. It does not matter about other journalists, this was an attack by you on Lydia, you can not justify it by talking about other journalists.Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
I do not wish to take sides on this issue, but I feel it is only fair to point out that Cavelino Rampante’s post is aimed at what he sees as double standards by a journalist and not at any action of Henderson’s.
Unlike Fist, who has grabbed the wrong end of the stick as usual, Prufrock has it right.
I have no reason to believe Henderson, McManus or anyone else have put away ante post punters any more than I believe Bolger did, nor have I ever stated as much. I know next to nothing about racehorse physiology but I accept they are fragile creatures and plans can change with them quickly. The horse was still under treatment when Henderson made his announcement on Feb 17, he shouldn’t have issued the statement about such a high profile horse in such a high profile market unless he was 110% certain the horse wouldnt run. He’s in the game and in the media long enough to know it too. Not one journalist anywhere pulled him up over it.
Jim Bolger didn’t have a fragile horse, he had an owner with a fragile ego who NOBODY says no to.
I fail to see the difference. Both horses were categorically stated as non runners by their trainers, both horses ran. As a result one trainer was ripped to shreds by elements of the racing media with punters rights used as justification for the mauling, today we had punters being called "thieves" by the very same journalist on the very same issue.
Like I said they pick their victims carefully these media lions(ess’s)
Must be no gravy ’round Coolcullen way.
Who got it wrong? Did you read your own post?
You said " In one of her last (if not last) articles for The Times, Lydia Hislop rightly imo castigated Jim Bolger for his "contrary words and deeds" in the build up to New Approach’s participation in the The Derby of 2008”
Rightly in your opinion your said….. As far as I can see you are now head hunting Nicky Henderson because you think he should also be castigated to balance up the books………. Yes? No?Of course you are, or you wouldn’t agree with the above?
So don’t come away with rubbish cop outs like you don’t think Nicky Henderson is any more guilty than Jim Bolger when you’ve already agreed JB should be hung drawn and quartered.Maybe Lydia has double standards I don’t read her writings that often to judge but you have a single standard:- Cut both their heads of guilty or not.
I dare say Lydia had her reason for having a go at Jim Bolger especially if he was messing with people’s heads but that’s not Nicky Henderson’s style. Never has been never will be so as simple as this may sound she obviously knows the man and saw no reason to pull the man up because there wasn’t one.
The fact Binocular was still under treatment means what Carv? Do you even know what treatment he was undergoing and for what? How do you know what was going through the mind of Nicky Henderson or what info he got from the specialist? For all you know Nicky was 110% certain he wouldn’t make it and then as they often do the horse surprided the hell out of him. Or maybe he brought the specialist in just for the fun of it.
Your guessing mate to suit your post.
You say Nicky should have said nothing until he was 110% certain. I’d hate to be the punter who had 10,000 quid on him the day Nicky was 99% sure and said nothing.
The man did what he thought was right…end of story.
CR
Few understand your plain English it seems
Suggest you read Lydia’s reply if forthcoming and then give up
Paul Fitzgerald (a mostly ex customer of racing)
Keep posting bud, whatever
At last, Fist wrote (page 5) …Taking advantage of the sytem my backside….geezus where do you sweetie wives get these ideas from??
Fist, I can only repeat what I wrote in relation to Cav and Lydia (also page 5)…. reasoned, intelligent and articulate debate……
I only wish I could respond on similar lines to your post Fist but, sadly, that would not only be patronising towards you but a great misjudgement on my part.
You ask where we get these ‘conspiracy’ ideas from? It’s simple Fist. Until such time as the racing industry is 100% clean of any fiddling, cheating, fixing etc. then we punters are always going to be suspicious of anything that doesn’t smell right and deviates from the ‘norm’ leaving punters at a disadvantage. That is the culture we have grown-up in and who are you to suggest that we shouldn’t have opinions and believe those opinions to be sound? What makes you think your opinion, because that’s all it is, is any more or less valid then ours?
I hope you spend your winnings from Binocular wisely.
KI think the primary problem with the thread is that people have got caught up in the issue of the perceived rights and wrongs of Bolger/Henderson et al rather than Cav’s original point which was around Lydia Hislop’s interpretaion of those two events.
It’s almost tempting to extract Cav’s original post, Lydia’s reply and then Cav’s second post and place them in a (locked) thread of their own. High quality stuff indeed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.