- This topic has 43 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Guilty of having steroids on his premises? Might have been for the stable cat as far as proving anything about horses is concerned.
Not just "steroids", anabolic steroids. Including this one:
http://www.naturevet.com.au/internation … php?pid=81
If you give that to the stable cat, it will eat you for breakfast…
Powerful stuff. Coincidentally, one of the moving graphics on that site – on the top banner is . . . a cat
"I strongly suspect that after a chat with the trainer, the owner reached the conclusion that TTT had little chance at Cheltenham anyway."
Don’t buy that one, TTT has as much chance as anything else at Cheltenham, nothing is written in stone until the race is run and won.
Like you, many obviously did not ‘buy that one’, hence the headlong rush of people falling over themselves to praise such a noble and principled move. Even the bookies got caught up in it and refunded stakes.
Had anyone laid off their keyboards for half an hour after the announcement and actually tried to analyse what had happened, I suspect the reaction would have been much different. You couldn’t move on twitter without cannoning from one saintly comment to the next.
All this and your money back too on a horse which had …
Passed all 6 dope tests
Was not barred by any racing authority
A trainer not barred by any racing authority or found guilty of the current charges against him
An owner who seems to be an impulsive individual & who does not care to expand on his reasons for withdrawal, and,crucially
, did not take his horses away from the trainer.
What is that all about?
You’re either innocent until proved guilty or you’re not. The owner either believes that or he doesn’t. If he does, his horses must run. If he doesn’t, he should cease all dealings with the suspect and remove his horses.
If owners can simply withdraw horses from big ante-post races on some unexplained principle that they ‘do not care to expand on’, what kind of precedent does that set? Especially with bookies refunding bets.
What will happen next year if an owner with the favourite for one of the big races lays it ante-post on Betfair then decides to withdraw it ‘until I learn more about my trainer’s affair with the groom/his behaviour as a student smoking pot/his failure to attend Mass every Sunday’
Ridiculous scenario? Of course. But so is the current one. The only difference is the reference point. Otherwise, the decision is based on the whim of an individual.
Racing’s unpredictable enough without owners being able to act this way. And when that action brings nowt but praise and returned stakes … the sport has gone mad.
I don’t believe him nor do I disbelieve TTT’s owner.
If I were the owner of a racehorse I wouldn’t care less what punters thought, I would do what I wanted to do, as is my right as the owner of a horse.
If punters want to make ante post bets then that too is their right and their risk.I don’t believe him nor do I disbelieve TTT’s owner.
If I were the owner of a racehorse I wouldn’t care less what punters thought, I would do what I wanted to do, as is my right as the owner of a horse.
If punters want to make ante post bets then that too is their right and their risk.Good for you. Who do you think provides most of the prize money for owners?
Ginger, they tested TTT as well – all clear. No reason whatsoever for the horse not to run so far as the racing authorities are concerned.
As I said, had BC lost faith in Fenton, fair enough – but he’s left his horses with him. What’s BC to do now when the ‘possession’ verdict comes through?
Guilty of having steroids on his premises? Might have been for the stable cat as far as proving anything about horses is concerned.
His decision ‘best for racing’? How much cash was done ante-post by those who support racing with their betting money?
How many deprived of seeing how good the horse actually is? Do you think he took that into account?Very little "cash was done ante-post", most bookmakers returning stakes.
They’ve been "deprived" of seeing one horse in one race, big deal. Just as Balder Success’s owners have deprived people from seeing an equally as good fit and ready racehorse at Cheltenham; for their own questionable reasons; and punters have lost their money on that one.
The few that have lost out by TTT not running is regrettable, but should be judged against what adverse publicity "Racing" would get had he won the Neptune. "Best for racing" if TTT does not run in Connell (and my) opinion.BC’s comment to C Cook "He said TTT had paid his way for the season and is one for the future", seems a bit closer to the motive for my money. I strongly suspect that after a chat with the trainer, the owner reached the conclusion that TTT had little chance at Cheltenham anyway.
As well as price and form – I was under the impression TTT had a good chance and you backed the horse Joe. I saw no change in betfair prices to suggest the trainer thought any differently prior to this ordeal.To hang the withdrawal on the halo of personal principle, when there was plenty time to give the authorities a chance to act…it made no sense to me at the time and makes even less sense now.
principled
one.
As I said originally, it has cost me nothing financially, so quite where you see the disingenuous angle coming from on my side, I don’t know.
I’ve got no problem with you thinking Connell came to the wrong (principled) decision Joe. Racing is all about opinions. But some may see describing Connell’s principled decision as "disingenuous" as itself "disingenuous" on your part…
Value Is EverythingGinger, we’ll agree to disagree on all the dissected stuff, if you don’t mind. Just clarify one thing for me, why might some think me disingenuous in this debate?
"Disingenuous: Lacking in frankness, candour or sincerity"
All Fenton horses now cleared to run by BHA.
Cue Twitter silence from the 99 percent who applauded the decision by Barry Connell to withdraw The Tullow Tank. Bizzare decision at best,
disingenuous
at worst.
As I said Joe, I have no problem with your opinion thinking Connell’s decision was the wrong one, you’re entitled to that opinion.
But saying Connell’s principled decision might be "disingenuous" could itself look disingenuous on your part.
Why not just accept Connell rightly or (in your opinion) wrongly made the decision on principles? Instead of suggesting he was at all "Disingenuous": Lacking in frankness, candour or sincerity.
I know you as a very principled person Joe (one of my favourite TRFers) and was shocked at the "disingenuous" comment. Surprised you did not understand someone else’s principled decision, even if disagreeing with it.
Value Is EverythingGood for you. Who do you think provides most of the prize money for owners?
Look, there’s no need to be sarcastic – we all know about prize money. Simply putting my point forward that an owner has the right to withdraw his horse just as anyone has the right to take the risk in placing ante post bets.
Ginger, this will be my last post on this thread until the Fenton verdict, because others will doubtless be bored silly already.
But saying Connell’s principled decision might be "disingenuous" could itself look disingenuous on your part.
How on earth could it look ‘less than frank or candid’ of me to say that about Barry Connell, or anyone? It’s a straightforward statement meaning that I do not believe it was a decision based purely on principles.
You, above all on this forum, would be well aware that a highly principled man is invariably ready to defend such principles by debating the worth of them ad nauseam. Mr Connell’ when offered the opportunity to do so? ‘I’d rather not.’
You obviously choose to accept that it was a decision based purely on principles. Tell me this, if Our Conor had been the horse in question, do you think Mr Connell would have made the same decision?
OK, will try and answer your points Joe, but have some questions myself that I hope you will answer.
If my trainer was facing this court case I would not want to talk about it either. There is indeed a time for a
“principled man”
to talk and a time to remain silent. You’ve said it is a matter of whether he believes his trainer or not; but the plain fact is NO owner knows for certain what his/her trainer gives the horse. So it is absolutely understandable Connell does not want to explain/talk about the possibility of his trainer being guilty, nor should he. Am sure Fenton would not want him to talk about it either. Thisthatandtother is right, the owner has every right to make a decision on whether to run or not.
Connell does not want to put Racing through bad publicity if TTT were to win the Neptune and possibly again if Fenton loses the court case. Is that principle not a good one?
It was always known Racing Authorities had no power to stop any Fenton horse from running at Cheltenham. ie No power to stop bad publicity if TTT were to win at Cheltenham. Therefore, no point in Connell waiting for Racing Authorities to act.
If I were Connell hope I’d make the same decision. However, without actually having to make the decision myself how do I know that when it came down to it I’d not bottle out? Same goes for if Our Conor was Fenton’s, obviously the bigger the race the bigger the decision. So we will never know whether I (or Connell) would have made the same decision over Our Conor. But I do hope and believe so.
What exactly has Connell to gain through NOT running a fit and ready racehorse with a good chance of winning one of the best races of the season? It MUST be a principled decision.
You said
“I strongly suspect that after a chat with the trainer, the owner reached the conclusion that TTT had little chance at Cheltenham anyway”
. If I did not know you better Joe, this statement could easily be described as bizzare at best, disingenuous at worst. You backed TTT yourself, form was good and shortish bookmaker price all strongly suggest a good chance… And exchange price did not deviate like it can when connections think their horse is over-estimated by bookmakers. Had trainer and owner thought
“TTT had little chance”
– they could simply come to a joint decision not to run. Problem solved. So if you are right then there’d be no need for any singular principled (or otherwise) decision by Connell.
Forget about whether you agree or disagree with the decision, I get that; just tell me why you believe it was not a principled one? Only…
Hope I’d have come to exactly the same principled decision as Connell. So why do you see MY decision as
“Bizzare at best, disingenuous at worst”
Joe?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.