As a punter she's just not a trainer you can rely on
People post on this forum coming at the game from a variety of angles and using a variety of language.
I wouldn't use the language Euronymous sometimes uses, but I get where he is coming from, even if I don't always agree with him.
To him, any trainer is probably a walking set of betting-related statistics which build an ongoing picture of whether it's profitable or not to back their runners.
Euronymous seems to have formed a negative impression of Venetia Williams - that's fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion, he's betting with his money, so if he wants to "give up on a trainer" (ie not bet on their runners) that's up to him.
The gender of this particular trainer has got nothing to do with what is essentially a betting thread - Euronymous hasn't criticised her record because she's female, but because he believes her horses don't run with consistency.
As a punter, how much prize money she has ever won, or the challenges she may face behind the scenes, are irrelevant - he's looking at the bottom line of how profitable or otherwise it is to back her runners.
Others, who maybe don't bet or, if they do, only bet for fun, may assess it differently.
It's blindingly obvious - or should be - that the two camps are talking at cross purposes, analysing this using different criteria, which both are entitled to do, viewing the game through differing prisms, so there's really nothing to see here.