- This topic has 166 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am fairly sure it was not an error keeping the horse in the race.
Then why say it was a "mistake" that the horse was left in. He could as easily have said "plans are not finalised". Also the reasoning re the ground is not plausible. There is no way any trainer would take his horse out of the Derby 2 months before the race on account of the going. How many times have we heard or read that a particular horse will only run ground permitting. What was wrong with Bolger stating the New Approach would only run if the going wasn’t firm.
Thanks to his messing around, I’ve backed a horse at 7/1 and it is now 10/1 AND it has another horse to beat. That is my problem with Bolger. I don’t care where the horse runs provided the trainer has some level of decency and honesty about his statements.
I think it is unfair to call it a witch hunt – Bolger and Weld publicly questioned the continued relevance of the Epsom classics in terms of breeding. As I have said before in this thread, as long as the most powerful breeding ops in Europe still send there horses there, Weld and Bolger’s views are of little relevance – and it is all the more embarrassing for them when they do u-turns which are probably forced by their respective owners. Mr O’Reilly knows full well the breeding value of an Epsom Oaks winning mare will be far greater than a Curragh or Chantilly one – fact.
Firefox,
Can you please tell me when Weld questioned the relevance of the Epsom classics in terms of Breeding? I don’t remember him doing so, and if he did, what did he say? I do remember him most definitely questioning the entry system, which it would seem now is a poor state of affairs. And what if he did question the relevance, should he not, is the Derby sacred?
There are a lot more races in the season than the Derby, its not the making or breaking of a potential stallion or mare for that matter.
JohnJ
Thanks to his messing around, I’ve backed a horse at 7/1 and it is now 10/1 AND it has another horse to beat.
David that maybe so, however you could have been in precisely the same position as a result of another horse being supplemented – it is always a risk with races that allow horses to be supplemented. Could the same situation not have arisen had there been an unexpected supplementary entry?
As far as I am aware Bolger has not broken any rules of racing. By leaving the horse in there was always the possibility it could run and as I have already said, with Bolger’s track record anything he says should be treated with a pinch of salt.
I would agree that what he has done is morally questionable. However how many of us are in a position to take the moral high ground? Speaking personally it would be very hypocritical of me to publicly question anyone else’s morality.
Surely, one of the dangers of ante-post punting and a very good reason for not getting involved.
Colin
David … you could have been in precisely the same position as a result of another horse being supplemented – it is always a risk with races that allow horses to be supplemented. Could the same situation not have arisen had there been an unexpected supplementary entry?
Another horse WAS supplemented – Casual Conquest. But because his trainer didn’t state that the horse was ruled out entirely, the horse was kept in ante-post lists and didn’t affect the price of other horses when it was finally declared as a definite runner.
Surely, one of the dangers of ante-post punting and a very good reason for not getting involved.
Strictly speaking, it IS one of the dangers of antepost punting. However, it is a very unusual situation in that a trainer has basically been deliberately and blatantly dishonest with public running plans about his horse. All betting (antepost and day-of-race) depends on a certain level of honesty from horse’s connections.
I have ALOT of time for Lydia….she is generally top class….but there is well wide of the mark on a couple of occasions in her piece.
Firstly I think Bolger is an ass, and a particularly stubborn one. He gets an idea in his head and seems to enjoy it when other disagree as it only convinces him even more.
But this article was mentioned and discussed elsewhere with the following points mentioned by others…
When she critises Weld for not knowing what he had before the supplementary stage….did she mention the same thing about Stoute (took Kris Kin out of the Derby then back in again!) and O’Brien (Dylan Thomas went off as the stable outsider)…two of the leading trainers who did not know what they had up to and even after the Derby? Both horses had more chances to show this that a twice raced colt.
While Bolgers actions are rightly slammed, why tar the rest of the Irish trainers in the same way?
I’m the opposite I have very little time for Lydia who’s writing are often laced with venom.
I find her articles uninteresting and even hard to understand at times.
6 quid for Thai Food….you pay that in entertainment areas in Thailand never mind the UK…..perhaps she needs a payrise
To sit back and critisise Weld for not spotting that a short head winner of a 20k maiden was a Derby horse, is not what I would call good journalism.
Let’s face it, CC beat a horse who went on to win on the all weather against a bunch of mules then finished 4/5 in a group 3.
Weld must have been doing handstands with a form boost like that
To critisise the man for deciding not to enter 8 weeks ago CC is rediculous. I have seen horse improve a stone in 2 weeks in my time.
My guess is they knew he had improved but never knew what they had on their hands. At least not until he took of like a rocket in the straight last time out at Leapordstown. I actually thought he looked well beat at one stage.
At some stage good horses improve and you start to dream about what might be. You can dream and hope all you want, but one in what? 10 million? will improve from a maiden win like his to Derby status.
It’s not like he was being touted like some hotpot goodthing at Leapordstown. Connections would obviously have been hopeful but looking at the market they got a very pleasnat surprise.
I would imagine he showed much more improvement once back on the course, than they could have possible wished for.
I am sure everyone arround the horse was suprised to some extent and all concerned are really excited that their horse might just win the Derby.
I would rather read comments on how fortunate the owners feel than someone rubbishing the trainer like Lydia has. To me all she is doing is having a go at the trainer and taking a cheap shot to fill a page.
I find it extremely hard to admire people like that.
I am pretty sure when he sold his share of the horse to Darley that he got assurances (and not just words) about the racing career and path the horse takes.
What are you saying Aidan then, that the Derby has always been on the agenda? If not, whether assurances exist or not, then they are clearly not worth the paper they are written on.
Your assuming it was Sheikh Mo that changed his mind, I dont think it was. He ruled out the Oaks for Lush Lashes but she is now going to run, I think its much the same here. He likes the hoop la and the controversy.
What exactly IS the entry system?
This is from the BBC website from 2002, the entry system was under the microscope then and not sure much has changed except for the supplementary fee…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_s … 985053.stm
JohnJ
Firefox,
You’re digging yourself a hole. Why don’t you come back and let everyone know how many classics Weld has won compared with Oxx.
I am fairly sure it was not an error keeping the horse in the race.
Then why say it was a "mistake" that the horse was left in. He could as easily have said "plans are not finalised". Also the reasoning re the ground is not plausible. There is no way any trainer would take his horse out of the Derby 2 months before the race on account of the going. How many times have we heard or read that a particular horse will only run ground permitting. What was wrong with Bolger stating the New Approach would only run if the going wasn’t firm.
Thanks to his messing around, I’ve backed a horse at 7/1 and it is now 10/1 AND it has another horse to beat. That is my problem with Bolger. I don’t care where the horse runs provided the trainer has some level of decency and honesty about his statements.
He left the horse in before the Irish Guineas and at that point was confident NA acted on any going. So there was no way the horse would run because the Irish Derby was the target (on any going).
After the Guineas he knew firm was against the horse. When it became obvious the going will be on the easy side at Epsom, yet could be firm at the Currragh, it was a wise decision.Every punter knows trainers can change their minds, I too have backed horses ante-post. But I am quite happy to see a change of heart by Bolger. New Approach, Casual Conquest, the best horses should run at Epsom. Punters interests should come second in that respect. Anyone has a right to change their minds, whatever they have said in the past. If a horse is in the race / might be put in the race, a punter must allow for that. Must admit my opinion might be made sweeter with a 47/1 voucher on New Approach (only a few quid).
Knowing there was a possibility of Bolger changeng his mind, Sheikh Mohammed changing Bolger’s mind.Mark
Value Is EverythingFirefox,
What has Irish racing got to do with it, when a British trainer acts in an unpopular manner, do all his compatriots sit back and go “oh dear, that doesn’t reflect well on British racing”. Jim Bolger is not a sole representative of Irish racing.
As for conveniently ignoring the Chinese White situation, perhaps you should actually read peoples postings, but as you seem unable to do so, I will post again for you…..
“I do think Bolger’s decision is bizarre as he did say all along his preference was the Irish Derby. However to say Dermot Weld has been giving punters the run around is incorrect. He has been very much upfront with punters stating that both his contenders for the Oaks and Derby were backward and his filly had no come in her coat. Why do you think he was not upfront?“
JohnJ.
David … you could have been in precisely the same position as a result of another horse being supplemented – it is always a risk with races that allow horses to be supplemented. Could the same situation not have arisen had there been an unexpected supplementary entry?
Another horse WAS supplemented – Casual Conquest. But because his trainer didn’t state that the horse was ruled out entirely, the horse was kept in ante-post lists and didn’t affect the price of other horses when it was finally declared as a definite runner.
David,
Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. I wasn’t specifically refering to the three (not one) that were supplemented. The point I was trying to make is it is perfectly feasible for a trainer to supplement a horse in the race without so much as giving an inkling that is his / her plan. That would result in the same scenario.
As Seabird pointed out that is one of the perils of ante post betting. A type of betting fulll of risks.
Your 7/1 shot could, this morning, tread on a stone or something and end up missing the race and you would have no bet.
A more likely scenario, for example, could be the ground goes against your selection and he drifts from 7/1 to 10/1.
The odds could drift because of weight of money for other horses.
The point I am making is there are a multitude of factors that can impact the odds of a runner and to single out one circumstance is perhaps disengenuous.
Firefox
Does that mean in NH racing you would have Toby Balding ahead of Nicky Henderson, Martin Pipe & Paul Nicholls ?
Toby after all has won both Champion Hurdle & Gold Cup whereas the others have only one either one. Throw in the Grand National and he’s streets ahead.
Conversely, are you suggesting Dermot Weld is a Paul Nicholls to John Oxx’s Toby Balding?
My initial suggestion was Weld’s initial decision to avoid Epsom could have been down to the fact he has come up short in the top European races so far in his career – which is why I said he is in Oxx’s and O’Brien’s shadow. Perhaps it would have been easier if I had restricted it to O’Brien, but then I thought "no", Oxx deserves credit for having successfully plundered Europe’s three most prestigious mile and a half contests. ANd I guess what I was trying to imply was that if Oxx trained New Approach, Lush Lashes, Chinese White or Casual Conquest, the decision to go to Epsom would never have been in any doubt whatsoever.
I dare say Weld, probably more than Bolger even, may have hoped to have keep his charges at home until the Arc at least and plundered domestic Group 1s – like Bolger I believe the decision was taken out of his hands, as both O’Reilly and Moyglare have failed thus far to secure Epsom glory and would no more than most the esteem it would bestow upon their charges.
Firefox,
Weld stated all along that he would consult Stan Cosgrave before supplementing Casual Conquest, so he actually put it in Moyglare’s hands. Lady O’Reilly has not had a runner in the Oaks or the Derby thus far.
JohnJ.
Firefox,
I see you have left John Oxx’s biggest supporter out of your list of Breeders, the Aga Kahn. Wonder why he didn’t send Dalakhani to Epsom in 2003? Dalakhani was easily his best three year old despite his defeat in the Curragh by Alamshar.
JohnJ.
I dare say Weld, probably more than Bolger even, may have hoped to have keep his charges at home until the Arc at least and plundered domestic Group 1s – like Bolger I believe the decision was taken out of his hands, as both O’Reilly and Moyglare have failed thus far to secure Epsom glory and would no more than most the esteem it would bestow upon their charges.
Why mention Moyglare then?
JohnJ
Firefox,
From times online May 5 2008
Chinese White was cut to as low as 5-1 favourite with Ladbrokes for the Vodafone Oaks after enjoying a smooth success on her seasonal reappearance at Gowran Park on Sunday.
The Dermot Weld-trained filly was sent off the 5-4 favourite in the listed ISF EBF Victor McCalmont Memorial Stakes and did not let her supporters down, readily coming four and a half lengths clear of Zafayra.
Connections have yet to commit their filly to the Epsom classic, but Weld was taken with the performance and is likely to pitch her into group one company next.
He said: “She did that nicely and we’ll see how she comes out of that, it’ll probably be about a week’s time before we decide where to go.
“She’s in [the Oaks] at Epsom, she’s in the Irish Oaks and the Prix de Diane too and will probably go for one of those races next.
“The obvious race would be the Irish Oaks, but I wouldn’t rule out Epsom.
“She had been slow coming in her coat and was carrying a bit of excess weight but we were happy with that performance in the ground, which was softer than ideal.
“She’ll want good ground but her class won it for her today. She is potentially a very high-class staying filly.”
Coral, VC Bet, Blue Square and William Hill all go 6-1, while totesport were also impressed and cut Chinese White to 7-1 from 10s for the Oaks, just one point longer than Dar Re Mi who heads their betting at 6-1. Paddy Power make Chinese White 7-1 favourite.
JohnJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.