- This topic has 148 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think Voleur might be a Willie Mullins stable lad. 😉
You got me…
Douvan not taking part isn’t the problem, Voleur. Mullins did indeed mention that he wasn’t a 100% certain runner. His decision to not declare the horse is absolutely fine and I don’t feel at all misled by that.
The problem is that he hasn’t followed the proper process in making this announcement. Market activity and Betfair movement suggest a lot of people KNEW Douvan was not running yesterday morning. He should have made a statement in the press before any of that came about. Instead he has kept quiet while punters and bookmakers have been stitched up.
In their latest press release, the BHA mentioned that they will investigate and act whenever there are worrying market moves like this. Hopefully the Irish Turf Club take a similarly firm stance.
That’s my point though LS, who really cares if a few stable lads were able to lay a couple of hundred quid before the word got out? Not much Mullins can do about that. I highly doubt punters or bookmakers were really ‘stitched up’ by the market activity. With the state of ante post markets these days, all it would take is a 50 quid lay at 3.0 for the market to go into a frenzy! As soon as the layers started giving away Douvan, all markets were suspended anyway. You’d be doing very well to convince me Corals lost a lot of money as a result of the exchange activity on Wednesday.
As for investigative action, would this not fall under the jurisdiction of the BHA as it was betting activity on one of their races?
1 If Vautour didn’t hammer an antepost stake into your heart as far as Mullins is concerned then, as my mother used to say, hell mend you.
2 Exchange drifts are the most reliable indicator of a non-runner. I’d say they get it right 99% of the time.
3 I cannot see any reliable way that the BHA or the Irish authorities can legislate to stop information leaks. They should bring trainers under the same betting rules as jockeys and they should bollix this brand ambassador crap. Other than that, what can they do? What would the punishment be for an information leak from a yard?
1 If Vautour didn’t hammer an antepost stake into your heart as far as Mullins is concerned then, as my mother used to say, hell mend you.
2 Exchange drifts are the most reliable indicator of a non-runner. I’d say they get it right 99% of the time.
3 I cannot see any reliable way that the BHA or the Irish authorities can legislate to stop information leaks. They should bring trainers under the same betting rules as jockeys and they should bollix this brand ambassador crap. Other than that, what can they do? What would the punishment be for an information leak from a yard?
Aa sensible way of looking at it.
Just one of those things. Causes far more perceived harm than it does in actuality.
I don’t understand your attitude at all here Voleur. This is a disgrace and I would have thought it indefensible.
Mullins COULD have done something – reach out to the press and tell the world that Douvan would not be taking part. One quick phone call as soon as he knew. There were 26 hours between the initial drift and Douvan’s non-declaration. He said nothing.
It wouldn’t matter if £100,000 were laid or £1 – it’s just not cricket at all. Whether a small wrong or a big wrong, it’s still wrong. Especially in the current climate with such an intense focus on integrity in racing, I can’t believe you’re willing to let this slide.
LS, not you as well with this ‘reach out’, aaarrghhh!!!
Mullins’s Vautour decision (driven to a large extent by Ruby, to be fair) was the equivalent of an antepost earthquake for me, and for many others, I’m sure. But all in all I think he’s a good man and a fair man.
What I suspect has happened here is that word has got out a few days ago that all was not well with Douvan and a few in the yard have taken something of an educated punt while Mullins has wanted to wait until the last minute to see if the horse will come right. Had he said a couple of days ago that the horse wasn’t pleasing him and he was up against it and then, at this stage, decided to run it would be damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
He is trying to be canny and make cover-all statements when it would probably be best just to report exactly what is in his mind.
I think there’s a case to be made for special treatment news-wise of such prominent horses where a trainer gives a daily update on his website or to the PA or equivalent saying exactly how things stand at that time and updating it if something unforeseen happens.
Punters need to shoulder their fair share of responsibility and the best thing with Mullins is never, ever assume a deal is done and bet accordingly.
According to Mullins he worked well on Tuesday and cantered yesterday but didn’t work as well this morning and the decision was made not to run him, assuming he then informs Ricci first of all and then the press so not sure what else he is meant to do.
To me given the horses injury issues, the fact that he was going to be facing racing fit serious G1 rivals I was very surprised the Tingle Creek was ever mooted as an option for him on his first start back – who knows, entirely possible that people looked at that and took a punt that he wouldn’t run.
Do people honestly think Mullins tells his lads or others ahead of time that horse ‘x’ will not run to give them a chance to ‘make some money’ off the exchanges before officially announcing to the press the horse is not running?
Sadly after the Vautour debacle I do think that people are determind to believe that no matter what Mullins does, he is being disingenuous to the public about his horses.
According to Mullins he worked well on Tuesday and cantered yesterday but didn’t work as well this morning and the decision was made not to run him, assuming he then informs Ricci first of all and then the press so not sure what else he is meant to do.
We’re talking about the honesty/straightforwardness of Willie Mullins here. Surely you can’t form your argument around a sentence that begins ‘according to Mullins’.
I don’t understand your attitude at all here Voleur. This is a disgrace and I would have thought it indefensible.
Mullins COULD have done something – reach out to the press and tell the world that Douvan would not be taking part. One quick phone call as soon as he knew. There were 26 hours between the initial drift and Douvan’s non-declaration. He said nothing.
It wouldn’t matter if £100,000 were laid or £1 – it’s just not cricket at all. Whether a small wrong or a big wrong, it’s still wrong. Especially in the current climate with such an intense focus on integrity in racing, I can’t believe you’re willing to let this slide.
I don’t have a problem with what you say LS3, I think for the integrity of racing it should be made
public as soon as a decision has been made that a horse isn’t running. My concern now is slightly
off the subject, but equally as important for the integrity of racing and betting. I’ll copy a post
I made in the Becher Chase thread yesterday in response to Mike………….———————————————————-
Mike007 wrote:
When I say a horse isn’t running it’s because it is a factual statement made from the connections“Vicente won’t be running the Becher Chase but he could head to Aintree on Saturday for the Many Clouds Chase instead.”
I saw the quote from Nicholls Mike, I just wonder why ALL of the bookies still have him in the
betting as low as 10/1. I wished he was running, I put him up along with Vieux Lion Rouge a week
ago, but Nicholls was quite clear he would not run in the Becher. I wonder how many people, who
weren’t aware of his comments, have parted with cash after Nicholls declared his intentions
——————————————————
Nicholls was quoted, and an article was published on the 5th December which clearly showed that
Nicholls had no intention of running Vicente in the Becher Chase. Last night (6th Dec), at 10pm,
I noticed on Oddschecker that he was still quoted by all bookmakers, as low as 10/1 in some places.
In case Oddschecker hadn’t updated the race, I clicked on one of the bookmaker sites, and sure enough
he was there at 10/1. I wonder how many people, unaware that Vicente wouldn’t be running, had bets
placed after Nicholls comments had been published. It’s kind of putting you on the spot, I didn’t
check Coral’s site, but do you know when you took him off the boards?Vicente was still in the betting because he was still one of the official entries. It’s in Nicholls’ power to scratch a horse via Wetherbys at any time (doesn’t have to wait for the entry stage) if he wants to make it official.
I take your point LS3, but don’t you think that in the spirit of fairness, when a trainer
publicly states his horse will not be running in a race, it would be better if he were
removed from the betting. I just wonder how much money punters had placed, with no chance
of the horse running. I think when we are talking about integrity in the game, it wouldn’t
be a bad idea if it worked both ways.According to Mullins he worked well on Tuesday and cantered yesterday but didn’t work as well this morning and the decision was made not to run him, assuming he then informs Ricci first of all and then the press so not sure what else he is meant to do.
We’re talking about the honesty/straightforwardness of Willie Mullins here. Surely you can’t form your argument around a sentence that begins ‘according to Mullins’.
According = as reported or stated by
Guess I could have started with ‘Mullins said’ but as I wasn’t there to hear the actually conversation he had, I think according works better in that context.
I have no reson to believe that he was being dishonest with that statement but I am sure there are those that will regardless, as they already believe in their own minds that he is.
I can’t believe some of you are so blasé about this. This isn’t right at all. Douvan’s non-participation in the Tingle Creek should NOT have been announced via a massive exchange drift and sudden rush of money for his main market rival.
I’m trying to think of other stables who do things properly and would suggest Paul Nicholls as the one of the best. He runs a tight ship. For example, there was not even a wobble on Betfair before he announced Movewiththetimes would miss last season’s Cheltenham Festival.
Ham is very pro Irish (and made a profit off laying Douvan ) Voleur is dismissing any displeasure as conspiracy theorist nonsense.
Those profiting on the exchanges is just one aspect of this and the Altior saga. Another is the lack of respect shown to other punters not using the exchanges and another aspect is lack of respect for race goers in general.
It’s also a right wing attitude to dismiss genuine, relevant concerns as conspiracy theorist nonsense.
The Altior situation was worse but I wish Ricci would stop beating the drum like he’s a bookmaker or pundit and behave more like an owner.
Rather pleased San Benedeto was declared eventually having stuck 2 quid on him on the exchange…. at a rather tidy 440/1
you never know…..
What would make anyone think in pro irish? What aload of nonsense, ive been laying douvan for weeks as i said at thebstart of the thread i believed he would never come here (that was totally WRONG as he was infact until this morning coming here)
Im “pro” for fairness on everyone, he went about this in the correct manner, anyone else who thinks otherwise is iust “anti mullins” which is an actual thing on this forum, henderson done a far worse manoeuvre at the start lf the thread (which is why i created the thread) than mullins did and looking at the beasting mullins gets for it but henderson gets a few snide comments
I couldnt care wether mullins was irish or german, he done nothing wrong. Get over it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.