- This topic has 52 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/46727919
Racing doesn’t half shoot itself in the foot sometimes. My first thought is this makes no sense. It will be interesting to see an explanation of this move but we really don’t need headlines like this.
Paul Rooney – Estate Agent turned Racecourse safety analyst. Every business needs to diversify to survive 😂
Free publicity for narcissistic owners who don’t have any Cheltenham horses anyway.
Obviously still hurting about poor old Starchitect last year, but that could have happened at any track in the country.
My first thought was that if they are only using data from their own horses, the sample size is far too small and that one or two unlucky disasters would be enough to skew the results.
I agree with all the above comments. People say the owner can do what he/she likes with his/her horses, however, if one chooses to be a high profile leading owner one is also taking upon his/herself a duty of responsibility towards the sport and its image with the wider public as a whole.
The Rooneys didn’t release this publicly, they wrote to their trainers with the request and at least one of them has leaked it to the RP.
It’s predictable that the racing establishment has closed ranks against them but I would be interested in seeing any data that supports their decision.
Some owners are routinely shelling out £250k plus on horses with the dream of running them at Cheltenham. If I had that kind of cash I’d want to know if there were disproportionate risks of death and injury to running at Cheltenham, either the Festival or otherwise so I could make an informed decision.
I’d want the same information about all the other tracks too. The NH game risk ostracizing and potentially losing an owner who has invested millions in the sport unless they come up with some facts and figures rather than just closing ranks.If I was an owner I don’t think I would put a blanket ban on my horses running at a certain course but I do somewhat admire the Rooneys for resisting the lure of the Festival. I understand why owners and trainers target it so much but it has got to the point where the top horses get so carefully minded all season- if the ground isn’t quite right or they are not working perfectly at home or their horoscope is inauspicious that week or they decide they don’t like courses starting the letter L or they’re just not ready yet they miss engagements- but if they have a setback after Christmas god help them cos they’ll be hustled to be ready for March then come the Festival, with few exceptions, they all get turfed out onto the track no matter what the ground is like or the course suits or whether their prep has been a bit iffy.
Same only more so at Punchestown if the trainers’ title is close- I suspect the view is taken that they have all summer to get their legs stuck back on. Fair play to any owner or trainer who decides Cheltenham is not right for an individual horse at any stage.
Entitled to make these decisions yes but then I assume that if they feel that strongly about it that they will then also not run any of their horses at other courses where they have had runners pick up an injury or even killed.
I do think horses (especially the top ones) are babied far too much with far too many ‘excuse reasons’ given for not running to their best and also the fact that you barely see them in more than 4 or 5 races (which these days are pretty much all level weight contests) a year.
How many times do we hear, the ground was far too soft or we are waiting for better ground to run him/her and then low and behold when we get better ground (around good) we hear we can’t run as it is too quick. O’Leery made a priceless comment of the Leopardstown good ground (although all race times were over 18sec slower than standard) for the Savills Chase being too firm for Shattered Love!!
A further point of how coddled horses are now was brought home the other day when The New One was retired and one of the commentators made mentioned of how tough a horse he was for being able to run 40 times in his career.
I thought really, Desert Orchid ran 70 times (winning 34 times) and if Elsworth had taken the same attitude they do now he would have never run in the ’89 Gold Cup, would never have won all those handicaps giving away lumps of weight. Sea Pigeon won as a 2yr old at Ascot (ridden by Piggot), finished 7th in a Derby, 4th in Princes of Wales St, was a dual Chester Cup winner, won an Ebor under 10st (still a weight carrying record to this day) all before going on to become a dual Champion Hurdle winner in a career that totalled 85 races of which he won 37 (which is only 3 less than the total races The New One competed in).
They maybe extreme comparisons but they also detail how you can argue that racehorses are a lot tougher/durable than connections give them credit for and wrapping them up in cotton wool could end up making them more fragile when they finally do make it to the racecourse.
Fully agree with Greenasgrass that we should be respecting any owners that make the bold decision for “resisting the lure of the festival”. LD73 is spot on about how horses are “coddled” now. The Rooneys boycotting all Cheltenham races, festival or otherwise, strikes me as a tad rash to me. I’d understand the decision far more if the justification was centred on anger about One For Billy running out in October, but basing the decision on concerns about Cheltenham’s safety seems bizarre to me. The track appears to do a pretty good job on that front.
The thing that has alarmed me most from this story is the way in which it was presented in the Guardian (the article linked at the bottom of this post). “It remains to be seen whether the Rooneys will still be prepared to run horses in the Grand National, for which entries will be published later this month”. Further oxygen for the rubbish spouted by those opposed to the National. Whilst the Rooney’s have not said anything about National, associating it with an article about the Rooney’s Cheltenham welfare concerns hardly does the Aintree race any favours (favours which it surely deserves, after another renewal without fatalities). I’m probably massively over-thinking this though.
Paul Rooney – Estate Agent turned Racecourse safety analyst. Every business needs to diversify to survive 😂
LOL
I fully agree Greenasgrass about the festival being the be all and end all of the season. There are so many wonderful races that are viewed as nothing more than trials for the festival which annoys me greatly.
However this has nothing to do with the Rooneys decision so hopefully it doesn’t cloud your view of this issue.
I can understand their frustration with the One for Billy race as something should have been done at that intersection long before now. But I can’t see how Cheltenham is inherently unsafe. It quite rightly presents one of the toughest tests of jumping in the country and the Starchitect incident could have happened at any course in the country.
Is it the Rooneys that have a habit of moving their horses to other trainers without much notice?
Yes, I think so. They certainly left Donald McCain – a nice man and great trainer – in the lurch.
This whole thing makes no sense to me – if they have uncovered evidence of their own to support their stance and there is a welfare issue then make it public so it can be addressed.
I assume Cheltenham must be the only place they have lost horses at as I haven’t heard that they are boycotting any other courses – maybe they would do well to just concentrate on having flat horses if they are uncomfortable with risking NH horses.
I really don’t see what Cheltenham have done (or haven’t done) to warrant this kind of response – yes I know the rail thing in hindsight shouldn’t have happened but in fairness up until the two incidents I can only remember one other such happening but Cheltenham did respond extremely quickly to rectify the issue as I have no doubt they would if any other issue came up.
The latest comment from Paul Rooney just seems weird in the scheme of things: “A number of things are happening at this time and there may be some more news on this in a few days’ time. But for the moment we have no comment on the situation.”
I hate to say it but it almost sounds as if they had their own personal agenda for setting this all in motion.
The annoying thing is that the news media just gleefully picks up on things like this in a ‘racing is bad’ sort of way without commenting on any wider issues.
Frankly I kind of agree with the Rooneys. Just did a very quick check via animal aid’s racehorse death watch site and these are the results.
Between 1st Jan 2010 and 1st Jan 2019:
Cheltenham 78 deaths
Sedgefield 39 deaths
Southwell NH 50 deathsI picked the other two because they’re often said to be very bad for horse deaths, but compare the numbers -especially when you consider how few meetings Cheltenham run in comparison. I did the same period for Aintree, again often cited as bad for horse deaths and guess what only 34.
Cheltenhan is lethal and it’s time it was recognised.
Very misleading figures though.
Southwell have 19 jumps fixtures
Sedgefield 20
Cheltenham 15However, I’d imagine the total number of horses who run at Cheltenham is higher. The races are also more competitive and more quickly run given the higher quality of horses involved, making injuries more likely
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.