- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Gold Guest had a solid chance and was heavily gambled. Nimello drifted accordingly, he is also notoriously unreliable. Nothing nefarious about that particular race IMHO.
(Edited by pixo at 8:56 pm on Mar. 27, 2003)
Platinum Racing is actually the David Nicholls Racing club. I know because I subscribed for the first year when Uhoomagoo was a 2-y-o trained like all the others by Nicholls which won twice as a juvenile. Others were Brandon Magic, Nifty norman and Sycamore Lodge, later joined by Millions, million per Cent and Platinum Duke. Passed the horses on to Karl Burke and called it the Platinum Racing club to avoid the connection with Dandy Nicholls and maybe effecting the starting prices. Although with Dandy`s strike rate most of his horses should start a lot bigger anyway
From The Racing Post 29/01/01:
David Nicholls has dissociated himself from the racing club that carries his name.The bizarre split was revealed when the Thirsk trainer contacted the Racing Post to issue a short statement which read: "Please note that with effect from January 25, 2001, David Nicholls is no longer a director of, nor trainer to, The David Nicholls Racing Club Ltd."However, the announcement was newsto businessman Miles Rodgers, the senior partner in the venture, which was launched in November 1999 and now boasts about 2,000 members. It is represented by four horses, three of whom are owned with a fourth leased.Nicholls, at Southwell on Friday where Uhoomagoo, a three-time winner for the club, ran unplaced, refused to add to the statement and referred inquiries to asolicitor who has failed to respond to a succession of calls.But after being informed of Nicholls’ statement, Rodgers insisted: "Under company law, until David comes to a directors’ meeting and tables his request to resign as a director, which I’ll agree to if he comes to see me, he is still a director."Rodgers, who admitted he was aware of Nicholls’ intention to resign, went on: "The racing club is owned 80 per cent by myself and 20 per cent by David. David isn’tparticularly happy with the fact that we haven’t earned any money in the first year. That’s basically what’s wrong with him."There are some debts, but he’s notbeing asked to pay any of them. I’ve given guarantees to my own personal bank that the debts are guaranteed by myself and that’s not a problem at all, but I think David just wants to do his own thing."Rodgers said the club would continue with another trainer following the parting with Nicholls, and the membership would be consulted about a name change."We’ve got a lot of good members and we’ll go to another first-class trainer," said Rodgers. "Of course at some point we’ll change the name, but-and I’m not being nasty-David is a trainer, as opposed to a businessman, and I think he thinks these things can be done quickly. The fact is that the club is called the David Nicholls Racing Club, it is a limited company, and names can’t be changed overnight."
I’m with James on this one – for the Platinum Racing Club to be unlucky once is fair enough, twice unfortunate, but this one is a little dodgy. Although it would have required a huge act of faith to back Nimello, who had beaten just nine horses in his last five attempts on Good-to-firm, it is hard to believe he was truly an 8/1 shot in a race in which he was a clear second best on ratings.
Still, those who managed to lay him at 11/4 early yesterday morning never had a moment’s worry as he confirmed his love of fast ground by being tailed off after half a mile!
Given the astounding amount of support for Gold Guest, who did have a clear form chance but was unproven over the trip, it is hard to believe that this race will not be looked into – even if it is just to reassure the Betfair faithful who were bleating having done their money.
2000 members x100= £200000, per year. Quite a lot for 4 or 5 horses in training a few of which were in their senior years of racing. I got the impression that even if over £100000 was won in prize money members would end up with nothing which was different to what was mentioned in the information on joining, of a share in prize money if any.
I never saw the 2 all-weather races, but I did see Nimello’s.
I’m going to suggest that when a horse wins the Lincoln then, 2 years later, it’s dropped 2 classes into a claimer at Muselburgh, it’s not a good sign. It may well mean the horse has serious problems.
That was my interpretation before the race and I’m sticking with it.
Steve
James
I agree that horses with serious problems shouldn’t be running.
I also think that runs like Nimello’s yesterday is bad for the sport.
However, when I saw the betting forecast (9-4), I thought Nimello was way too short.
Personally, I wouldn’t have taken 9-1, so I can’t agree it’s a massive price.
As ever, it’s all about opinions.
Also, I’m just telling you what I thought yesterday, taking this one race in isolation, not thinking about the 2 horses at Lingfield.
Steve
Nimello was "not off". I was at Musselburgh and there was only one runner in the "race". I don’t normally bet short prices less than (5/2) but had a mximum on this one at 7/4.
W.
James
I agree 100% that the JC should keep a close eye on market movements on the exchanges.
I also see no reason why they shouldn’t have enquiries into significant moves just as the stewards have enquiries into horses that run particularly well or badly. <br>Maybe they could combine the two.
In the case of Nimello. Assuming the course vet is an honest and competent person, we can put the poor performance down to lameness (as this was reported by the vet).
If someone was to know how poorly the horse was going to run, then they’d have to know the horse was lame before the race even started.
I’m not sure when the horse drifted out on the exchanges. the only record I have is 3.8 at just after midday.
Did the horse come out his box lame and the connections run it anyway, laying it on the exchanges all the while?
That would be quite a claim and I see no reason to make it.
I’ll go with my explanation that a horse winning the Lincoln and being dropped into a claimer at Musselburgh 2 years later was reason enough to doubt the horse retained it’s old ability.
Maybe not a 100% satisfactory explanation so I’d be interested in hearing yours.
Steve
James
I’ve not ignored his previous form this year at all.
Maybe it’s just my lack of understanding of the economics or horse ownership in thic country, but if a horse is competitive in 0-100 handicaps, is it worth letting go for £13k?
The Platimun Racing club has only owned this horse for it’s last 4 runs. Maybe, if we knew how much they paid for it, we’d have a better idea of what’s going on with this horse.<br> <br>Anyone know?
As for Paul Haigh, is he suggesting that
(a) before the race, the horse was known to be lame?
and
(b) someone aware of this fact used it to make money on the exchanges?
or is he saying that the horse being lame wasn’t a factor in it’s performance?
Steve
James
Firstly, I think it is plausible that someone could have dismissed the horses recent form based on the fact that it was achieved on fibresand but was now going to find itself running on tuft over firm ground.
(not GF as officially given but obviously firm if you were at the course and later confirmed by raceform)
Perhaps it is known that the horse just can’t go on firm.
Maybe it was the horses former owners that were laying it! ;)
As far as I know, there’s no rule against that (though the morality would be a little questionable).
Alternatively, it might just be a clued up punter.
This might explain what the horse was still trading at 3.8 at midday and only drifted later ie once people had had a chance to look at the ground.
Note that I am saying plausible. I don’t know enough about this horse to say that this is neccessarily true.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that the horse being lame had a major effect on its performance and to say that the horse was being layed by someone who "knew" it would run badly is, for me, to say that either:
(A) The horse was being layed by someone who knew it was lame.
or
(B) The horse would have run badly even if it wasn’t lame.
Personally, due to the lameness of the horse, I don’t see that we have any evidence for (B).
Looking at the bigger picture, I agree with you 100%.
We have a situation where it must be very easy to make money from a horse running badly.
In fact, as you pointed out, there’s far bigger money to be made from a laying losing favourite than to be collected in prize money from a winning one.
I, like you, believe that horseracing is generally a clean sport.
I also believe that most people in society are law abiding, but I still want there to be a police force.
For the same reason I want this sport policed properly and kept on the level.
Someday, those who run the sport in this country will wake up to the reality that the sport is dying a slow death as more and more punters switch their money to betting on football etc. because they know that, when Arsenal play Man U, everyone’s trying to win.
When that happens, then maybe we’ll get the level<br>of scrutiny of betting patterns that we both think is needed and then punters can bet with more confidence.
However, with all due respect to you, I’m just not convinced that Nimello is an open and shut case.
Steve
The trainer was interviewed on course before racing and he was quite negative about Nimello’s chances. <br> <br>This horse was not off and I’m certain the connections knew this and that is why it was in a claimer. It also explains the exchange activity and the performance. The connections should be investigateted for running a horse they probably knew would break down in the race. On the grounds of cruelty to animals this was a bad example and the trainer should be asked to explain the circumstances leading to the run.
There was only one horse ready and fit for this race and anyone could easily see this in the paddock.
W.
James:
I agree. I think we’ve come to and end with this.
As I said before, I didn’t follow the Lingfield races but I agree that the JC should be free to note "suspicious circumstances" and carpet those who’s names keep cropping up.
There are rules against this and we need them to be enforced for the integrity of the sport (and for our own bank balances).
Wallace: I agree 100% with what you’re saying re cruelty to animals. There’s no place for it in this sport or for people who would be happy to profit from it.
The Nimello run should be investigated from this angle to make sure this didn’t occur.
Steve
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.