- This topic has 128 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oh Ruby 👍
You’ve painted up your tips
Rolled n curled yer rating flair
Capper aint going to slip
Unless its in the Tiger’s lair
Rock on Ruby into town ✋I blame the bacardis 😁
They’re trying very hard to ruin this horse and his lifetime reputation and achievements. It looks as if he’s to run in the Oaksley Chase over an inadequate 2m6f at Sandown coming Saturday.
This happens just because the O’Learys are trying to prove the handicapper is wrong. Not only that Tiger Roll is done for the season, I think his retirement day is getting closer every day. I don’t think he’ll be able to win another National next year and he wouldn’t have bothered the first three this year either.
But this late season campaigning is very worrying and makes no sense at all. It is a weak G2, but having to travel over again just to have his handicap mark lowered after his hard race at Aintree is something no proper NH owner would even think of.
OK, so after Jack Kennedy reported that the horse could not live with the pace over three miles, O’Leary and his equally genius brother decide to run the horse (wait for it) over a shorter distance!!
And Diane Foster, who is unquestionably responsible for training the horse (how could anyone doubt it) is perfectly OK with that plan.
Even allowing for Sandown being a stiffer, more galloping track than the Mildmay course, this makes no sense other than a cynical exercise in getting the horse well beaten again to reduce his handicap mark while putting him at risk.
If he turns up, the stewards should hold an enquiry before the race and ask connections why they are running the horse when, by their jockey’s own testimony, he is completely unsuited to the race. He should then be withdrawn on welfare grounds and to protect the integrity of racing on their orders.
And if that p*sses off O’Leary, so much the better.
While i realise this horse has more public standing than any, if they did this, they’d have to start doing it every single day a horse is raced over a trip or on ground that’s been said to be unsuitable previously.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!A hilarious overreaction there lads. Jackh is right.
Tiger roll has won chases over 2miles, 2.5miles, 3miles, 3.75 miles and 4.25 miles.
He has never fallen, unseated just once in 42 races.
However below average the Bowl at Aintree was, this Sandown race is abysmal. He is joint top rated, and is getting 6 pounds from Frodon and Mister Fisher.
That is the point. It is perfectly obvious this horse, perhaps the highest profile in racing, is being run for no other reason than to make a point against the handicapper.
When exactly are these prats leaving racing? Sooner the better. Tiger Roll deserves better than this nonsense.
BUY THE SUN
Under various topics recently I’ve seen comments from posters who appear to be keen to ban certain horses or jockeys from competing due to perceived welfare concerns. I’m a passionate advocate of improving the sport’s safety for both its equine and human participants, but it does concern me that this seems to have become almost the default reaction to many developments, and going down this path seems very much a slippery slope.
If we are considering banning a dual Grand National winner who has won at the Cheltenham Festival this season from competing in a steeplechase, I think we have to conclude that the sport is just too risky full stop.
I’d also be interested to know if people would have had the same concerns about running Tiger Roll over a sub-optimal distance if connections had been trying to reduce his mark in the months leading up to the National weights being set.
I appreciate the comments are well-intentioned and I’m certainly no fan of the O’Learys, but believe we need to focus on controlling the risks of racing rather than banning all but a small minority from taking part. I can’t believe Tiger Roll would be at more risk in the Oaksey Chase than in the huge field of the Grand National. Heaven forbid that anything happens to him wherever he runs next, but there will always be a small risk wherever that may be.
It is not so much a welfare concern. I accept horses are at risk every time they race and if you watch racing you have to be prepared to accept that injuries (sometimes very serious) will happen. Although I do think an injury to a dual Grand National winner in these circumstances would be a bitter pill to swallow.
My point is: connections openly stated the horse did not have the pace last time but they are now suggesting running him just two weeks later over a shorter distance. Why shouldn’t the stewards question that decision? And remember, the Aintree stewards saw something in the ride last time to hold an enquiry.
It is transparently obvious what the O’Learys are up to here. I know other owners and trainers run their horses in a way to get them on a handicap mark they can win from. That is entirely understandable with a young horse starting their career or a moderate horse who cannot win above a particular mark. Punters accept it is part of the game.
This is a two time National winner who is being used by O’Leary – someone with no long term stake in the game – to stick two fingers up to the British handicapper. The horse and the public deserve better.
If Tiger Roll runs, how far do we think he will be beaten? There is no way he is going to win and risk his mark going up. And what would be the reaction if he has a few runs, goes down in the weights and then wins at Aintree next year hard held? People will say O’Leary was cheating.
I wish he would just retire the horse and then disappear himself.
Is it cheating? Or is it just manipulating the system, something which millions of people do every day in society.
It always amuses me when you see phrases like “not knocked about” or “ran well under considerate handling”.
I think this is OK for two year olds or unraced three year olds etc. But you see it used in other cases as well.
We all know what it means. The horse was not ridden to show the full extent of its ability because they do not want to risk getting a handicap mark that is too high. That is understandable up to a point, especially as prize money is so poor and landing a punt is a way to get back some of the training fees. But where is the line between playing the system and blatant cheating?
Connections need to run the horse to its best ability IN THE PREVAILING CONDITIONS of any race. ie I don’t (and nor should anyone) expect Tiger Roll to be at his very best over a 3m1f on “good-soft” (imo on the good side of good-soft) on a flat track… because it just doesn’t test Tiger Roll’s stamina enough to produce his very best form. But I do object to a NON-TRIER… And that was what Tiger Roll’s Aintree performance looked like to me. Not given the chance to produce what he could have done even given those less than ideal conditions. Jack Kennedy very easy on him mid-race and should have got a ban.
But as far as whether the horse should take part at the trip.
…I have no objection to Tiger Roll running over any trip as long as they’re TRYING. We can all come to an educated opinion of what the horse is capable of given prevailing conditions – as we can any horse… And the important thing here is surely SO CAN THE HANDICAPPER! If connections ran Tiger Roll under those Aintree conditions hoping the Handicapper would drop the horse’s mark they’ll be disappointed. Waste of time.Value Is EverythingIf he was ready to run at Sandown, then he should be a definite starter over the Punchestown Banks. Or am I missing something?
Why wouldn’t he run next week at ‘home’ in a race that will clearly suit him? There can’t be an excuse for not running.
If he runs in the La Touche Cup he should win it doing cartwheels. It’s just up his street and the event I assumed they would aim for if he didn’t run in the Grand National.
Whats clear here is that the repulsive Oleary’s are
1. Using a great horse to continually attempt to make some sort of bitter point
2. Not smart enough to genuinely “use the system”
3. Have zero love or respect for the game
I wished we knew that real reason for the obvious heavy falling out with Mullins rather that the horribly cringeworthy PR bollocks
Quicker they fck off out of it the better. I doubt anyone disagrees with that
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.