25 Years

links781

links781

Journeyman
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
1,556
Location
West Wales
Just got in from work,more of a reader than a commenter....normally.The content of my post has probably been replicated hundredfold today.Thats how many years ^^^^ racing went backwards today.I am absolutely seething and not speaking through my pocket
 
links: If you are talking about Bolger's prevarications before the Derby, then I can't be the only one who finds such extreme reactions mystifying.

Bolger made himself entirely available to the hostile press yesterday, and it seemed to me that he was dignified in a difficult situation, explained himself to the best of his ability if the [imo entirely plausible] account he gave us was true - and who is to say it's not? Sometimes the subconscious does work in odd ways.

Reading between the lines, he had been certain the colt would boil over at Epsom and genuinely didn't want to run him there and see him fail. He then put a huge amount of work into getting him to settle before taking the decision - which was made FOLLOWING him coming out of the Irish Derby bouncing. We've also had reports that he and the owners were in some dispute about running the colt, which can't be verified.

He may not have handled the PR well, and has a reputation in this regard, but I'm finding these repeated accusations of foul play well OTT - in fact increasingly distasteful. We have no proof at all that Bolger or anyone in a position of authority backed New Approach when his price was in 3 figs, and those who know the man say it would be unthinkable for him to have done so.

A couple of shrewdies on here did however take a punt at huge odds, and I bet they weren't the only ones prepared to take a chance. Did they have inside knowledge? - no!
 
A couple of shrewdies on here did however take a punt at huge odds, and I bet they weren't the only ones prepared to take a chance. Did they have inside knowledge? - no!
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jun 8 2008, 01:33 PM
A couple of shrewdies on here did however take a punt at huge odds, and I bet they weren't the only ones prepared to take a chance. Did they have inside knowledge? - no!
Click to expand...
Completely misses the point. In the absence of inside information, anyone backing New Approach was essentially backing Bolgers dishonesty. In essence you weren't necessarily backing this horse at this stage, but siding with your opinion that Bolger is a pathological deciever.

In any event, he still asn't answered quite a few questions to any reasonable satisfaction, not least the coded one raised by Paul Struthers
 
Actually, thinking about it, maybe SteveM had some info about what the owners wanted :p
 
The question I'd like to know the answer to is whether the calender committee ever contacted Bolger to seek clarification of his intentions. If you look at what Paul Struthers said, and his use of the word "immediately", then I'd suggest this holds the key? Bolger was clearly signaling one thing publicly and acting completely differently behind scenes (albeit in accordance with the current rules).

I'm also inclined to ask the same shrewdies whether they backed Henrythenavigator? After the Curragh O'Brien said he was a "definate possible" and Magnier said soemthign to the effect of "I wouldn't advise anyone to back him just yet". As the proceeding days developed and the rain fell, Ballydoyle and Coolmore to their credit issued bulletins which could be interpreted along the lines that they were siding against running. These bulletins were less unequivicol than Bolgers though, and Henry duly drifted to a backable price. Who backed Henry?

Probably no one I'd suggest? why? because people held the two operations in different regard. Anyone backing New Approach at a three figure price was backing Bolger and not the horse. If it were value, they could have backed Henry too. Dessie admitted that he was torn between NRNB at a decent price, or the Betfair price based on the fact that Bolger couldn't be trusted.

It would appear that there was a slightly feisty press conference afterwards, which caused Eddie Freemantle to observe in todays column that "Bolger needs a New Approach to his PR" Will Buckley was at the same Press Conference and quotes Bolger as conceeding that his actions coudl have been interpreted as misleading punters as "with some justification". It would appear from the two correspondents that Bolger gave as good as he got, before making some excuse to cut things short as a "very important lady was waiting upsatirs" (probably his owner?).

Personally, the result didn't hurt me, and made no difference to the particular toilet mine went down irrespective of his participation, but it goes to show that sometimes the bad guys do win
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 8 2008, 02:03 PM
Dessie admitted that he was torn between NRNB at a decent price, or the Betfair price based on the fact that Bolger couldn't be trusted.
Click to expand...
A wee bit strong on both counts, Warbler :)

I think I said I was in a quandary but the vast difference in price was always likely to sway me towards the 'risk' of greater returns for minimal outlay, which I knew I'd get back by laying off if the horse was eventually declared.

Did I actually say Bolger couldn't be trusted? (Off to check...)
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 8 2008, 02:03 PM
Probably no one I'd suggest? why? because people held the two operations in different regard.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps because people realized that backing an already doubtful stayer on ground that, at that point, looked as if might be quite soft on Derby day was not the best option.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 8 2008, 03:03 PM


I'm also inclined to ask the same shrewdies whether they backed Henrythenavigator? After the Curragh O'Brien said he was a "definate possible" and Magnier said soemthign to the effect of "I wouldn't advise anyone to back him just yet". As the proceeding days developed and the rain fell, Ballydoyle and Coolmore to their credit issued bulletins which could be interpreted along the lines that they were siding against running. These bulletins were less unequivicol than Bolgers though, and Henry duly drifted to a backable price. Who backed Henry?
Click to expand...
No, i laid Henry at 6 when he looked a runner and at 20 when he looked certain not to start. Why? Because like George Washington who i managed to lay at 4 just after his 2000 Guineas win he had virtually no chance of staying.
 
Please forgive me as I havent been able to follow the flat as close as normal and Jim Bolger may be a bit of a clown for the carry-on this year, but surely the only punters who can really complain about him are those who backed Tartan Bearer ante post - possibly after the Dante. i know some of these characters and they have some justification to be pis sed off.

Those who bet New Approach ante post as a 2yo must have been delighted with the result
Those who backed anything else in the Derby ante post other than tartan bearer would have lost anyway. Simply picked the wrong horse
Those who backed tartan bearer using the knowledge that New Approach would not be there have a legitimate gripe. A lesser gripe could be accepted for those who backed Dr. Fremantle to place.
Those who decided to lay New Approach at big prices trying to be clever given the stable's bulletins. Arent these layers trying to essentially use inside information to dupe someone with less information? I dont have any sympathy for them.

Far from the best PR but apart from the Tartan Bearer punters, i dont really know what punters can whine about.

I havent been following this as closely as normal. Am i missing something?
 
Spot on there Warbs. I've made my opinions on the whole thing quite clear (and I didn't place one ante-post Derby bet) in another thread but there is no doubt it my mind that the whole episode is sickening and not good for the sport when it's trying to regain some decent publicity after years of negative news.

Whilst he may not have been dishonest (although I don't believe his "mistake" story one bit) he still has been pretty cavalier in the way he has treated not just punters but racing fans generally. Whilst there is no doubt he has a commitment to his owners in his decisions, he still has to realise that his decisions and comments have a serious bearing on the people that prop up the sport.
 
I'm increasingly formulating the view that this is largely between Bolger and racing media, with some punters being caught in the cross-fire? I'd be interested to know who the first people are who start hoovering up lay prices when a horse is known to be a non-runner? and similarly, who takes the big prices when a target is known but not announced publicly? How do trainers communicate their intentions?

Bolger's never accused anyone but the current emnity flying around is making me suspect there's a whole can of worms underneath this story. To a large extent though, it's unavoidable. As with any information cascade, those closest to the action will hear first. When that information carries a financial consideration...... shrug::
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jun 8 2008, 11:45 PM


Bolger's never accused anyone but the current emnity flying around is making me suspect there's a whole can of worms underneath this story.
Click to expand...
If Teofilo`s 3yo career had gone without a hitch, or if he`d been with a different trainer this story wouldn`t have anywhere near the same venom attached to it.
 
Let's face it, the most stupid part of all of this was Bolger saying he wasn't going to run the horse in the Derby. As farcical as subsequent events were, surely the horse actually running in the race was the most important thing, and good for racing?
 
Maybe if I understood his thinking a bit better I wouldn't think he's a prolific liar and a very good trainer.
Perhaps somone on here could give us an insight into the man that goes further than pointing out that he is a contrary ornament ?.....and yes the best horse running in the Derby is good for racing and the thought of a good horse getting booed (as suggested on here by some) after winning the Derby justs seems wrong to me.
 
As i can see it for me was that he was unsure whether to go to Epsom in the fact of him boiling over so informed the public who might want to back him that he more than likely wouldnt run. Then over the next few weeks when getting him more relaxed at home thought why not take a chance.

The way he has done it was stopping the public backing him and wasting money with himself thinking there was a good chance he wasnt going to run so informed them he probably wouldnt run. If he had not said anything and then the public backed him and he pulled him out and didnt declare two days before the race most people would have done their money already. At least the way he has done it everyone who wanted to back him still had a chance to do so!

It looks like to me its a no win situation, if trainers inform the public its wrong and if they dont its wrong!

I backed Tartan Bearer myself and wasnt gutted just very pleased to have witnessed a very good Derby with two very nice horses pulling clear of the rest.
 
The issue isn't necessarily about informing the public per se, but rather what he says, he had a window of a few days to register his change in thinking and to put this in the public domain. He could have done this sounding a cautionary note if necessary, (as indeed Ballydoyle did when they were weighing up Henry's prospects, and Weld did as he was grappling with the same dilemma and coming round to a different final decision to Ballydoyles). He chose not to, and held out with his 'accident' story right up to final decs. Therefore, if he is to be believed, he must have made the decision when he woke up on the morning in question. Even then, he could have provided an indication earlier in the week that the race was under consideration again
 
I think that's well said Fudge.

And it was open to anyone on the day who'd backed Tartan Bearer to have a saver RFC forecast as I did at the prices on the day which paid a decent return [£34.67 to £1 reverse] so I find all the griping well OTT

The only big losers would be those who laid the horse at 3 fig odds; equally they could back to cover themselves at the 9s or whatever available subsequently. Warbler is right, it's a war with back story with the press here, and perhaps a perception of arrogance. In Bolger's case I feel a certain arrogance is justified: genius comes always at a price.
 
Back
Top