- This topic has 29 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/articles/cvg7e2pe5q0o
Interested in views on this. I think its the right call but its for the wrong reasons. Its an optics thing isn’t it basically, worried about what the antis think because the sport is in the shop window. If the horse isn’t deemed suitable to race at Aintree should he be suitable anywhere? The cynic in me suspects nobody cares what he does when less eyes are on him. I wonder if they could have something like the stalls test they have to pass on the flat after x amount of dodgy starts/issues before they can run anywhere.
“If the horse isn’t deemed suitable to race at Aintree should he be suitable anywhere?”
That’s the key, although it maybe should be the National rather than Aintree.
They’ve ruined race. Reduced the distance, reduced the number of runners, made the fences powder puff and choosing what can and can’t run by some unnamed judges. Apparently 6 horses were prevented from running in the race last year by this panel.
The race is now a farce.Right decision made regardless of how they got to it – he has only completed 3 times in his last 12 runs, 4 other times he was pulled up (including 3 times in his last four runs) and he also has had two refusals to race.
His two runs in the Grand National has resulted in him unseating his rider both times – the Grand National start is a nightmare at the best of times with all the horses and the charged atmosphere from the Aintree crowd which are very close to the start, it is a start like no other and can’t clearly be replicated as a test for a horse to see whether he will start or not – unlike a stall test for horses that refuse to start on the flat.
I do have sympathy for the owner but (given the horse’s history and form) you do have to seriously question why on earth he was advised that Mr Incredible was a suitable candidate to fulfill his ambition of having a Grand National runner in the first place.
Mr Incredible has been unwilling for some time, should have been retired after his last ‘run’ and I was under the impression that would be the case.
Thomson’s response – quoted from Racing Post
Responding to the decision, Thomson told the Nick Luck Daily podcast: “The panel had two issues. One was that he would disrupt the start, but the only time he has disrupted a start was the one time he wore cheekpieces – every other time he has walked in.
“Their other point was his recent form, but their guideline was you take into account his last six runs and within that he was second in a Midlands National. We are where we are, but it’s very disappointing as we’ve put in a huge amount of work with him.”I agree with Yeats’s assessment of the Grand National.
However, I can understand this decision. There must have been a good chance he would refuse to start.
Would it be wise to risk a non starter which came under orders? I doubt the once a year punters would like being told they have lost their money in those circumstances.
The horse is more trouble than he is worth and the race is better off without him.
Knew he wouldn’t of been allowed to, not that I don’t think he will be bothered by the decision
Be interesting to see if he barred from any other racing and so enforced retirement into another discipline
When was scratched from Grand National after his last performance when referred to bha boardVF x
“Racing’s ruling body intervened in recent days, questioning whether Mr Incredible showed sufficient form during a recent race at Kelso, when he started but pulled up, even though connections had been pleased with the horse’s performance.”
If connections were pleased with that performance then they have low standards. He almost refused to race- and rather than harmlessly planting at the back he kind of got going , then threw up his head and ran sideways doing his utmost not to start. He did something similiar at the start of the Rowland Meyrick too. Fortunately because the were few runners in either race, there was plenty of room for the other jockeys to avoid him, plus both races had low key , steady starts with nobody desperate for a good position. With 34 runners razzed up to 90 and the cavalry charge start of the National, he could easily ruin several other horses’ chances as well as his own. The trainer said, “My defence was that he has never disrupted any start. Having got him started at Kelso I saw no reason why he wouldn’t start in the Grand National, and having more horses around would have helped”. Other runners aren’t there to act as emotional support animals / physical buffers for your basketcase, Sandy.
On that most recent start he jumped nicely whilst he had plenty of racing room and met everything on a lovely stride. The moment he made one small mistake he started throwing teddies out of the pram and would have probably refused the next if not vigorously ridden into it, then he did pull himself up. In the hustle and bustle of the National , there’s every chance he would throw a strop in front of the first, or at the Canal Turn, refuse and run down the fence. Too much risk of a Popham Down/ Foinavon scenario.
“The horse is more trouble than he is worth and the race is better off without him.”
Strongly agree. Horse was at those antics as early as his third chase start when with Henry de Bromhead and also did it with Willie Mullins. No doubt new connections wanted the fairytale story, “The big yards could do nothing with him, everyone had written him off but we believed in him, we knew he was just misunderstood and now he is a hero” blah blah. Sometimes it works, this time it wasn’t working and nobody wants to risk your mule causing a melee and getting other horses or himself injured or killed, or at best wrecking their chances.Owner is “devastated” apparently because he has been “trying to buy a Grand National horse for three years”. I understand that the ownerv is an Olympic sportsman and the trainer was a top rugby player too. One would have thought they would know that 3 years- less than one Olympic or World Cup cycle- is nothing, in sporting terms. You can’t just buy a cast iron starting spot. If you bought a physically fragile horse and it went lame you wouldn’t start crying in public about how sad you were that it didn’t get to run, so if you buy one that is already wrong in the head why get all upset and complain instead of shrugging your shoulders and accepting that your plan didn’t come off.
“I was contacted after entry and they offered me to withdraw”. Well there we go. Connections could have saved face but no. IMO it was stupid and selfish of them to ignore that offer.
I do think its the right call but I’m not keen on this idea that because its the National and he might cause carnage we can’t have that because millions are watching and betting, but he can race at Bangor or Fontwell or wherever on a Wednesday. I don’t think the National should have special conditions for running attached to it that other races don’t. If anything its giving off vibes that they know the horse is a problem and probably isnt enjoying his racing full stop currently but that won’t be addressed we just cant have him in the National.
When I saw him pulling himself up at Kelso my first thought was that he shouldn’t be allowed to deprive another horse of running in the National. I actually thought that his connections would have had the decency to withdraw him.And I’m saying that as someone who had backed him thinking that he might be a reformed character.
I think the National is a bit different because of the number of runners and the speed and intensity of the start with vying for position. But having watched his past couple of starts I think he is so bad and unpredictable that I think yes he should be banned altogether- both for fairness and safety of the others, but also because he looks like he doesn’t enjoy racing. How many goes does it take before schooling and trying to help a horse turns into bashing a square peg into a round hole.
I’m disappointed by Thomson’s reaction to this. I understand he has been trying a different regime in trying to rehabilitate a sour horse with a good level of ability. His performance,at Kelso was not nearly a vindication of the horse’s current suitability for a major event and this should have been acknowledged.
I would have wished him well in trying to sweeten him up but sympathy has run out. Thomson should have withdrawn him himself.
By the way I recall a decent horse named Private Views trained by Nick Gaselee who was apt to refuse to race. They sought the services of a horse shrink. He did get under way in a race over the Mildmay course but sadly took a fence by the roots and was killed.
I am reminded of Tarqogan’s Best who Rod Simpson declared for the 1993 National when his previous six races had resulted in the form figures RRRR0R. Two of those refusals had been over the National fences, including in the John Hughes (now Topham) just two days earlier.
Perhaps fortunately, this was the year of the void race. The horse got caught up in the chaos at the start, and didn’t get the opportunity to prove his odds of 500-1 wrong.
A PR disaster waiting to happen if he runs , no other decision a rational person could come to .
The horse don’t want to be there .
I don’t care if he hoses up at Ayr it was still the correct decision . They have brought a lemon off Mullins . He horse is not old but Mullins moved him on for a reason , they rolled the dice and it has not come off .Helcat Google “Yorkhill” and “Rehearsal chase” , Thomson is to the master of repairing soured horses , another example is Dingo Dollar , 5 U 12 PU last 5 runs for King , at Thomsons he
Was 1 2 4 3 5 UR 1 6 PU …Am relieved.
Those that are thinking the National is just the same as any other race are wrong.
With possible animal rights campaigners etc. it can be harder to start the race a second time with horses of normal temperament, let alone a Mr Incredible.
In the Grand National not only are there more runners, but also the Aintree atmosphere to contend with… Both Cheltenham and Aintree’s atmospheres are more likely to get a horse worked up in the preliminaries. All means that if a horse’s temperament means he’s often bad at the start of any race… Then it could be worse and / or more likely to happen in the Grand National.
Also, a couple of years ago we had the Grand National disrupted and delayed by saboteurs. Connections of first fence faller Hill Sixteen blamed the the horse’s fall and death on the delay / saboteurs. Because a delay caused by one horse can upset some others… And they have an increased chance of not having their mind on the job. More likely to make a mistake. Therefore, imo any horse that is more likely to delay the start should be removed.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.