- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Was dreading to see this when they announced a horse was being treated after the race knew it would be bad news.
Glad that they didn’t have crowds attending today as this would have been awful to witness and all thoughts go to those that loved and cared for him and who came here with such high hopes of a big race winner to end like this.
So sad.RIP Mutafani
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...I feel very sorry for the horse. But running a 1000-1 (exchanges) shot first time out for a very small stable after about a year in such a competitive handicap is something I don’t quite understand.
There might have been easier prep races for him than the Cambridgeshire. Being pushed early and not even lasting 3 furlongs doesn’t read too well. Trainer operates with a 4% strike rate this year and prefers class 5 and class 6 races up north. The Cambridgeshire doesn’t fit into that equation.
Rest in peace Mutafani
Good point well made Ruby.
Perhaps there should be restrictions at entry level for horses such as him to avoid suffering.
You picked that up straight away so why don’t Racing Welfare step in when it looks like a horse such as him declares in a race like The Cambridgeshire? It’s more transparent now for uncaring owners and trainers.Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Thanks, Jac. I just think that owners should be more realistic about the races they’re targeting and that also the BHA should take a closer look at entries for certain races.
A real pity to lose such a horse that apparently was well suited by a track like Chelmsford.Do the BHA need specific, measurable criteria to bar an entry or can they just stop a horse from running if they think it’s not quite the thing?
The trainer of the 4th placed horse has a 3% strike rate this season.
Lammtarra won the Derby after a layoff one day shorter than Mutafani’s, on his second career start. His first start was at Newbury- not exactly the course to find out if a horse will cope with Epsom. If he had broken down, would there have been outrage?
Are the tracks up north safer for horses in some way? Mutafani’s first ever start was on the Rowley Mile, is that negligent? Is it OK for “good” trainers to run horses after a long layoff, or to up horses in grade rapidly, but not “bad” trainers? What’s the cutoff? (Not stable size, presumably, or the novice Coneygree would not have won the Gold Cup on his 4th chase start).
I’m not saying that the windmill tilting is a good thing (the modus operandi of Ireland’s own Big Day Out dreamer, Luke Comer, was in evidence again today as two castoffs from Ballydoyle and J.Gosden respectively trailed in 30 lengths adrift of the winner in a Group 3; presumably he’s tolerated as he sponsors races and he occasionally gets winners along stopped clock lines- the latest being at 300-1).
I just think it’s hard to set the criteria in a fair way. The qualification rules for the Grand National make sense from a safety and welfare POV but Flat handicaps…hmmm, as long as the horse is somewhere on the premises (and he wasn’t out of the handicap or even the lowest rated horse in it) and the jockey has a clue (the apprentice booked had had over 1000 rides and about double the number of winners that Paddy Pilley had when he was approved to ride in the Derby) then fire away.
If the horse was going to break down, he would have broken down in a class 5 at Ripon on a weekday. It just wouldn’t have been on telly. You could say he was more suited to Chelmsford than Newmarket Heath, but the same is true of European turf horses going off to run on dirt in America, or even grass in Australia.
My sympathies always lie with the horse wherever he/she breaks down be it in a Claimer class 6 or Group contest and not just because I saw it on telly.
Mutafani has lost his life and nothing is going to help him now. No horse can say where they want to run it is in the hands of the trainers to know their horse and place them in races where they believe they have a sporting chance against the other runners not just for an owners jolly.
Yesterday on ITV I heard Richard Hannon refer to Happy Romance as the owners ‘Toy’. If this is is what racehorses have become surely someone must be at the helm looking out for them.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...I fully agree with you, Jac. As far as Happy Romance is concerned, you have to admit that she ran in seven very competitive races in the space of 14 weeks. This can be quite demanding, especially for a two-year-old. The “Toy” remark is a very stupid one and it would rarely come out of a successful owners’ mouth. The Magniers, JP, Sheikh Mohammed, Khalid Abdullah, Gigginstown and so many more would never describe a horse as a toy. At least I can’t recall them doing so in over 25-30 years.
What I don’t understand about horse racing is why there aren’t any trial or re-qualification races for horses that have been off the track for alonger period of time. I know it is done in Hong Kong, not quite sure about Japan or Singapore. It is also done in trotting and if you look at other sports such as Athletics or Formula I, athletes/participants do have to qualify for bigger events, like the Olympics or a world championship.
So, I guess no harm would be done if a absentee would go through another trial before being allowed to participate in a race. I’ve seen numerous barrier trials at Dundalk (thanks to YouTube) and I think it’a good thing. The outcome is very informative for potential buyers, connections and punters and the races are run without the use of the whip.
A complete win win situation for the entire industry.
A really positive post Ruby and as you say a win win situation for all.
Let’s hope this can get off the ground soon and help all horses who have had long absences from the track or who are aimed too high.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.