- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t think the trainer is being particularly ‘clever’ I think it is simply a case of have horse will run. Even if you take the opposite view you have to consider that running a horse every few days on ground it doesn’t appreciate will eventually have a detrimental affect.
As for owners, outside of the Arabs, I am not sure how many other owners are attracted by Johnston’s approach.
Where is the evidence it has a detrimental effect, many bounce back after poor runs such as Swift Alhaarth and there’s many more, Fox Hunt won the German Leger last week.
With well over 200 horses he’s not exactly short of owners and I’m not sure that many prefer to pay £500 a week training fees plus purchase price to see their horses stood in a stable rather than running in races.
Maybe you prefer the Noseda approach of running horses like Dare To Dance 3 times in 2 seasons and winning 10 grand prize money but that’s not much fun for racing fans is it? But who knows he may win the Eclipse next season and make it all worthwhile although he’s entered in a below tariff handicap at Ayr next week, maybe he’ll win that.Yes, if the Noseda approach equates to running a horse under optimum conditions to preserve a long-term future that involves some sort of progression. If Dare To Dance had broken down yesterday the horse may well have had no future at all. Is that what racing fans want?
Personally, I would only have a horse if I could afford to write off the total cost. Ownership should be viewed as an expensive hobby with no guaranteed return. The last thing I would be thinking of is deliberately running a horse over the wrong trip on unsuitable ground in an attempt to deceive the handicapper. What benefits the horse should be paramount.
Yes, if the Noseda approach equates to running a horse under optimum conditions to preserve a long-term future that involves some sort of progression. If Dare To Dance had broken down yesterday the horse may well have had no future at all. Is that what racing fans want?
Personally, I would only have a horse if I could afford to write off the total cost. Ownership should be viewed as an expensive hobby with no guaranteed return. The last thing I would be thinking of is deliberately running a horse over the wrong trip on unsuitable ground in an attempt to deceive the handicapper. What benefits the horse should be paramount.
Why would Dare To Dance breakdown? Don’t think even Noseda would claim it as a more likely possibility apart from the norm. Many believe more horses suffer injuries through watering than than running on fast ground.
You may view ownership as expensive hobby solely for the rich but it’s not one I concur with, or is it healthy for the sport imo.
No one’s talking about deliberately running a horse on the wrong ground to deceive the handicapper but once you’ve travelled many miles and spent hundreds on transport it’s perfectly reasonable to take your chance.
With the hundreds of non runners we have every week due to 48 hour decs etc Johnston should be applauded for not contributing even more non runners to the farce, pity more don’t follow suit.
At the end of the day it would be pretty boring if all trainers trained the same, like most things variety is better.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.