- This topic has 24 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
I’ve never been one to take the words of any trainer too seriously but, following Gay Kelleway’s comments before Hawaana’s run at Lingfield this afternoon, I thought it would be interesting to see just how much faith is placed in the opinions of connections.
For those who didn’t see the race, Hawaana was described by his trainer as ‘badly handicapped, coming back off a break and in need of the run’. The horse duly drifted from an early 13/2 to 11/1 in places, before being backed back in to 15/2 and prevailing in a photo.
An honest appraisal and pure coincidence, perhaps?
Hmmm.
Only 3 pounds higher than its last winning mark and that victory was achieved after a significantly longer break, so you could argue the signs where there and if i spotted it no doubt everyone else did and thats why it was hammered into.
Then again if it was a stable coup fair play times are hard and it was only a wee fibAny trainer playing games in handicaps has to be treated carefully, but a good number of the top trainers do tell it as it is. My list of favs (off top of head) would be
Nichols (probably the most candid)
Godolphin
King
Mullins
Gosden
Bell
Tregoning
HendersonI know that there will be some anorak who will try to be more cynical than thou by giving such and such an example where they "got it wrong", but would we all be better off if they behaved like Stoute?
Seldom do I listen to trainers.
How many times have we heard a trainer, double-handed in a contest, show preference for one horse, only for the other to bolt in?
Really, they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Same applies to jockeys.
Some trainers take the ‘Matin Pipe’ approach…
So, Martin, decent chance in the big race today. What can you tell us about his chances?
Nice horse, should go well.
(Um, thanks, Martin)
They don’t give you any real info and get panned.
Conversely, some trainers are very open about their chances and you can’t blame them for trying to point you in the right direction, but one thing I’ve learned, and it doesn’t matter have well versed you are in this sport…
Horses can make you look stupid!!
I take an interest when a trainer says a horse is badly handicapped.
Sometimes they are right, but othertimes they’re not. The point is that the trainer is peeved because they thought they had a chance of winning a race with the horse. This last point is quite useful sometimes.
There is also the queston of what it is you’re listening for.
TAPK panned Miss Venetia Williams’ performance on the Morning Line on Midlands Grand National day. However, she said that she never knew which Mon Mome was going to turn up. If you take a comment such as that onboard, then it is prudent not to discount the horse because of its recent bad runs.
Kelleway had two winners and a second at today’s low key Lingfield meeting.
She used to have a reputation for liking a tilt at the ring so good luck to her if she landed a touch.
She hasn’t had things easy as a trainer, having to relocate premises etc.
If viewers were put away …..well.
Don’t think we should take too much notice of what connections say.That said, I’d broadly agree with the list containing Nicholls, King, Gosden and Bell.
Hannon and Hughes? Amiable enough but jockey bookings no obvious guide when they have more than one 2 yr old runner in a race. Some go in first time, others better for the race. Watch the betting!
Hello,
If you owned and paid for the upkeep of YOUR horses including training fees, I certainly would want my trainer to say absolutely NOTHING.
This does not mean one has to be unpleasant. Henry Cecil would answer a question with a question answering such a banal query as "It should win, Henry?"
Henry: "Should it?"
Interviewer: "It is a really good horse"
Henry: "Is it?"
Interviewer: "Well it is off to RA now?"
Henry: "Is it?"
Interviewer: " It will be Derby favourite now?"
Henry: "Will it?"
..and so on…
Basically a trainer, as an agent to the owner, shouldn’t say a dickie bird about his charges without the express permission form the animal’s owner.
I know to some readers my view is not considered "fair" but how can the premise "fair" be attached to such a diverse sport, inclusive of the many "characters" involved.
regards,
doyley
Those kind of replies from a trainer would normally leave the interviewer and audience frustrated, but Henry manages to pull it off with an incredible charm.
If you owned and paid for the upkeep of YOUR horses including training fees, I certainly would want my trainer to say absolutely NOTHING
Why? Not every owner is in it to pull strokes. Not many of the top ones in either code I would suggest
If i owned a horse i would like to think that i would be aware that the sport exists only because of punters and that treating them with contempt will ultimately drive them towards other betting mediums.
Words of Bart Cummings:
"If I know they are going to win even I have difficulty
telling the owner.
It is impossible to be a successful Trainer just on
the Training fees in Australia.
Son, let me give you a tip, in this game don’t
believe anyone but yourself and then ask yourself if it’s true"Hello,
Clive, the sport does not exist to support punters, if , and hopefully, when, you own a horse, the punters as you fondly call them, will be the farthest thing from your mind..
regards,
doyley
Who is to say this was a genuine stable gamble? Some big players on Betfair like a trainer switch more than any other factor and this one having left Eve Johnson Houghton would be a positive?
Wouldn’t take a great deal of money to move one from 10s into 15/2 in a weak Lingfield handicap either. Not saying GK is whiter than white, but she isn’t usually one to play down the chances of her runners.
- Total Posts 17716
I was trying to use the Gay Kelleway example as an opening to a much broader discussion, citing her apparent lack of confidence (there is, of course, nothing to say it was a stable gamble, but that’s the feeling I get given just how negative she was) as a precursor to evaluating the openness of trainers in general.
- Total Posts 43
If Gay Kelloway said the sky was blue I’d have to look up to check.
Her aside, there’s far too much emphasis placed on the views of trainers and, especially, jockeys.
The only use trainers can be is in supplying information on injuries and setbacks. They know next to nothing about the strengths/weaknesses of other horses in a race, so their view is biased in favour of their own animals.
Jockeys are even worse. This predisposition to hiring ex-jocks for media work is preposterous. Dale Gibson is the latest to dip his toe. Mick Fitzgerald, Luke Harvey, Dale McKeown, Richard Perham, Jason Weaver, Richard Pitman, Willie Carson, John Francome; it’s embarrassing to listen to some of the nonsense they come out with. They might have been able to pilot a horse, but that’s a world apart form interpreting form or value, or unlocking a race. Their whole careers they’re banned from betting, and suddenly when they retire they’re expected to become experts on it?
5 minutes of Gibson on last week’s Morning Line was enough for me. He uttered such gems as "you need a horse that travels at York" – a bloody cliché that means nothing. Horses win after coming under pressure a long out there all the time. Then he reckoned a draw at either side was crucial in the sprints – despite the winner and placed horses coming up the middle in Friday’s sprint.
Last night on RUK he emphasised how you need a horse that "stays well" to win the Cesarewitch, as if it was searing insight we should all be glad he’d deigned to impart.
Jockeys are always being asked for their view on the going after the first race. Again, full of their own importance, they’ll give an appraisal without realising that how their horse has handled it and where it has finished is a huge part of how they view it.
The media should abolish this misty-eyed fascination in getting the opinions of the inner sanctum of racing and concentrate on hard facts instead imo.
Good post, Zee Zoo.
Not JUST because I agree with most of it.
Dale Gibson has appeared to be auditioning for a job as a TV pundit for several years now. He seems to have convinced the powers that be that he is an expert reader of the form book.
That may be, but he’s still a boring little fart.
Colin
Colin,
You really must break this habit of being too nice about people and tell us what you really think.
But I agree with you about Gibson. Unfortunately, he has the one quality that TV producers and directors value above all others – he can talk fluently without hestitation or repetition for hours on end. They don’t care a jot that what he says is bland, patronising to the viewer and totally lacking insight, so long as he helps to fill the endless hours between races.
Think of him as visual Polyfilla ……
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.