- This topic has 46 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
However, Vautour aside: Mullins entering his Exceptionals in top races with encouraging words attached – which has the affect of discouraging rivals from running – allowing his Lesser Exceptionals a much greater chance to clear up. Seems to happen too often to be just coincidence.
GR, if this is indeed the case, surely it’s up to other trainers to wake up?
If Monalee had been trained by Mullins I’m guessing there would have been uproar when he was pulled last weekend. Withdrawn from Leopardstown Sunday morning having been ‘declared in error’. So de Bromhead jocks up the horse on Friday morning and nobody realises until Sunday?
There does seem to be a strong anti-Mullins bias on forums and social media.
You can say “If Monalee had been trained by Mullins I’m guessing there would have been uproar”, THM… But does de Bromhead make a habit of declaring in error?
Does he make a habit of doing other stuff that looks suspicious or ungenuine? That’s the point. Anyone can point out things that another trainer has done that Mullins has been criticised for, but it’s the regularity of it happening that matters. Personally, if a trainer does something once or twice I am inclined to believe the trainer that it’s accidental. If it’s happening regularly then it’s less likely to be accidental.GT, Mullins enters all his horses up everywhere, everyone knows that’s no guarantee whatsoever that they will run. Have you examples of where Mullins entered his big guns, frightening off opposition and making things easier for ond of his lesser lights?
Even if this is the case, which I’m doubtful of, what is wrong with it? if other trainers are naive enough to take Mullins’ entries with anything other than a grain of salt then they’re probably not paying much attention.
I cannot agree more. People go on as if Mullins is some state-owned body competing in a private industry, using its position of power unfairly. He is just another private company! Terrible analogy but it is ridiculous that people feel Mullins needs to adjust his own, clearly effective, strategy to suit the other trainers. He has built his position of power from the ground up and deserves every bit of success he has. I am loath to say it, but one can’t help but feel it boils down to British frustration at Irish dominance.
You are not loath to say it and its bollocks frankly
Haha fair enough that is certainly up for debate. Personal opinion though, and I believe he will definitely be remembered as the greatest of the modern era by the time he’s said enough is enough!
No he wont and he isn’t
As for criticism, Henderson, Nichols and plenty of others have copped their fair share on forums over the years. Often pretty unfairly. It strikes me that Mullins in some peoples eyes is just too much of a poster boy (not a pretty one admittedly) national hero and defended regardless.
No one can doubt that he does have a pretty offhand attitude towards punters and racegoers (sandown was not a high point) but I do have some sympathy towards his last minute placing of horses.
But when would u want him to make up his mind? Why would he tell us all in Christmas where his horses will run in march? He obviously likes to leave things as long as possible so he can have as much evidence as possible before making a decision and I think to be fair any of his late decisions or decisions which might have surprised people have by and large turned out to be the right decisions, so its a system that he is comfortable and good with.
If I trained a horse and said all season that he would run in the RSA for example and his next few runs were poor over that distance, I’ve backed myself into a corner because I’ve committed the horse to a race. I’d either have to face a barrage of abuse for changing targets or I’d have to leave my horse run over the RSA trip and have no chance. That’s why it makes sense to leave decisions on horses until the last minute and maybe if more trainers did it, they might be more successful
Who’s complaining about that type of thing?
Absolutely. That is a baffling post
Voleur, I’ve been betting antepost at the festival for more than 40 years. I’m well used to taking the good with the bad and taking the bad on the chin. The Vautour incident was not a simple antepost bet gone wrong. Whatever the intention of the Closutton team – and we’ll come to that – it ended up affecting two markets – The Gold Cup and the Ryanair worth millions in betting turnover. This wasn’t just a fancied horse, it was, had people known he was Ryanair-bound, about as close to a good thing as you can get. Without him in that Ryanair, many people, me included, had backed Valseur Lido and Road to Riches with quiet confidence (they were 2nd and 3rd).
Also, Vautour was favourite for the Gold Cup and many had backed him for that. Some, who’d thought themselves good judges at the time, had taken 25s about him winning the Gold Cup.
At a preview night in Ireland Ruby said he’d be doing everything he could to persuade Mullins and Ricci to run Vautour in the Ryanair. He retracted this within 48 hours saying he’d been joking. The following week, on March 2nd, at another preview night sponsored by his company, Betbright, Ricci apparently moved to put that Ruby ‘joke’ to bed by saying the horse ran in the Gold Cup or stayed in his box. This is the owner, a big businessman, chairman of Betbright Bookmakers. Many welcomed the statement as clearing up the matter (Mullins had maintained that the Gold Cup remained the target for Vautour)
I’d be interested to see how the yard, and Ricci in particular would have been treated in Hong Kong where integrity on the betting side is everything. Or how the city regulators would have treated it if, in his position as a banker/company chairman, Ricci had announced he was buying company A next week and, contrary to rumours, not the very similar company B.
A late reversal of that position in any other regulated field with such high stakes involved might well have seen him end up with a multi-million dollar fine. In racing he does it with impunity. Time for some alterations to the rules on the integrity side, perhaps. Until then, the very least Ricci and Mullins could do is cite the furore over Vautour and simply say “no comment”. Pending that, punters like me treat anything and everything they say as utterly worthless. The fact that Ricci even carries on discussing plans for his horses shows extreme arrogance or stupidity. As for those channels who breathlessly announce “Interview with Ricci about festival plans!”, they’re supposed to be news channels. You couldn’t make it up…oh, wait a minute, actually you could.
I fully agree that the handling of the whole situation was terrible and it left a bad taste in the mouth. But what I am arguing is, however poorly Ricci and Walsh, or ‘Team Mullins’ as you call it, handled the build up, I do not believe punters were deceived on purpose. The only reason punters were so upset is because, as you have said, the effect Vautour had on both betting markets. If say Bristol De Mai was rerouted to the Ryanair this year, after being campaigned for the Gold Cup, Twister Davies wouldn’t receive half the backlash and venom Mullins did and does.
You could argue this is understandable due to the more profound effect Vautour would have on the outcome of either race, but this just places unfair pressure on team Mullins to get their plans 100% correct in advance which is impossible. I understand that comes with being such a high profile team with high profile horses but it is nevertheless unfair.
It is this pressure that no doubt resulted in Ricci making such a statement in the first place. I am not excusing him or Walsh, they are both probably media trained and should know the effect their comments have on punters money. In the case of Walsh it is obvious he doesn’t really care,but Ricci I feel made a completely genuine gaffe.
This is one of those topics that leaves people utterly divided and at the end of the day neither will know who is right or wrong about intentions etc. Ricci and Walsh misled everybody, but intentionally? I don’t think so. Is Mullins at fault? Not for a second.
Haha fair enough that is certainly up for debate. Personal opinion though, and I believe he will definitely be remembered as the greatest of the modern era by the time he’s said enough is enough!
No he wont and he isn’t
As for criticism, Henderson, Nichols and plenty of others have copped their fair share on forums over the years. Often pretty unfairly. It strikes me that Mullins in some peoples eyes is just too much of a poster boy (not a pretty one admittedly) national hero and defended regardless.
No one can doubt that he does have a pretty offhand attitude towards punters and racegoers (sandown was not a high point) but I do have some sympathy towards his last minute placing of horses.
Really Clive? Name 5 trainers of the last 30 years Mullins isn’t as good as?
There isn’t much between any of the top trainers. They get them fit and place them well. It’s a skill many have shared
I would certainly say that “in the modern era” which is longer than 20 years pipe was certainly the most innovative and changed racing for ever. And I wasn’t a Fan
I also would say that Nichols,has proved the best at keeping more of his top horses at a peak for longer periods and that seperates many trainers from their peers
i can’t believe that parallels are being drawn with other trainers and what they might do or when their horses are injured. If they communicate it fairly then so what?
It’s not the point at all.
Why this paranoia about criticism of Mullins?
All those are fair points except for the last. I take it you don’t go on social media much? If so you wouldn’t call it paranoia. Every second comment on At The Races, Racing UK or the Racing Post Facebook pages seems to be slating Mullins or Walsh.
People have a right to be frustrated and I’m sure this anti-Mullins/Walsh wave will pass, but it is just so tiresome.
Does he make a habit of doing other stuff that looks suspicious or ungenuine? 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.