Barney Curley

[Gamla Stan]

Racing for Change?

From the RP....

A gamble on a Barney Curley-trained trio appeared to have been foiled on Monday when the third of his heavily backed runners failed to make any impression at Wolverhampton.

Bookmakers report a fourth horse, formerly trained by Curley's former assistant Andrew Stringer, has also been heavily backed. Jeu De Roseau, trained by Chris Grant, runs in the 7.30pm at Towcester.

Agapanthus, partnered by Tom Queally, ran out a good winner of the Whoopsadaisy Charity Handicap at Brighton having been gambled in to 2-1 (from 7-1), despite returning from a 187-day absence.

The second and third legs of the apparent gamble came in both divisions of the amateur handicap at Wolverhampton on Monday. Both were ridden by Declan Luke Queally.

Savaronola, who went off as an 11-10 favourite (from 5-1 earlier in the day), took the first division with ease.

But Sommersturm who was sent off the 1-3 favourite having been 4-1 earlier, let down his backers in the second division, at 5.30pm.

Speaking before the 5.30 Stan James spokesman Charlie McCann said: "Punters have been on from first thing this morning backing Agapanthus and Savaronola, the two afternoon winners, with Sommersturm (5.30 Wolves) and Jeu De Roseau (7.30 Towcester) in doubles, trebles, yankees and lucky 15s.

"Jeu De Roseau was previously trained by Curley but is now in the tutelage of Chris Grant. If the next two oblige it will indeed be a Black Monday not only for Gordon Brown but for the bookies and a red letter day for fearless punter Curley, who appears to have planned the day with military precision . . . so far."

Curley became infamous in not only the racing and betting world, but also in wider circles after the then gambler and entrepreneur masterminded a coup at Bellewstown in the summer of 1975 where he made the most of the poor communication between the track and off course bookmakers to win a reputed IR£300,000 (€1.7m in today's money) on a horse called Yellow Sam, which ran in his colours.

In the intervening years both as an owner and trainer, he has been associated with numerous gambles, plenty at a low level, and often using then relatively unknown jockeys, some of whom, including the likes of Frankie Dettori, Jamie Spencer and Tom Queally, have since established themselves among the top names in the weighing room.

Curley has reduced his racing interests in recent years and spends much of his time working for the Direct Aid For Africa charity he established in 1996.

 

[Cantoris]

This surely cannot help Racing for Change. While I admire the sheer audacity of it all, this is absolutely ridiculous from an integrity perspective and they need to seriously investigate how long that horse was in Grant's care.

 

[Steve T]

Bookmakers report a fourth horse, formerly trained by Curley's former assistant Andrew Stringer, has also been heavily backed. Jeu De Roseau, trained by Chris Grant, runs in the 7.30pm at Towcester.

25/1 into 5/4, sp 6/4, and wins.

 

[Gamla Stan]

It's absolutely absurd.

Nobody can claim that all three horses suddenly turned into winning animals after being tailed off in all their most recent starts.

He should simply be warned off.

 

[Bar the Bull]

A bit of me loves strokes like this.

 

[Gamla Stan]

The only people to benefit from this are those close to the Curley yard.

The betting public are screwed over and it makes the sport look an absolute joke.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I agree with all of that. However, a bit of me loves strokes like this.

 

[EC1]

The only people to benefit from this are those close to the Curley yard.

The betting public are screwed over and it makes the sport look an absolute joke.

he is not alone with screwing the general public over though is he?

the problem i see is that when its AOB warming horses up that lose at less than 2/1 without a word of warning that they aren't going to get even a tap from the jockey..its deemed ok on this forum..so why when someone else does it is there an outcry?..i didn't see many call for his head after the one at Chester..

at least Curleys triers are pretty obvious

not too consistent with the criticism imo..in fact its pure bias really

 

[Sea Pigeon]

he is not alone with screwing the general public over though is he?

the problem i see is that when its AOB warming horses up that lose at less than 2/1 without a word of warning that they aren't going to get even a tap from the jockey..its deemed ok on this forum..so why when someone else does it is there an outcry?..i didn't see many call for his head after the one at Chester..

not too consistent with the criticism imo..in fact its pure bias really

I'm a big fan fan of AO'B but i absolutely agree with you

 

[Gamla Stan]

EC1,

I'm one of O'Brien's fiercest critics on here as others will vouch for and whilst I think he's guilty of using the racecourse as a training ground far too more regularly than he should and connections of the yard probably have stopped a few, I don't think he genuinely stops racehorses and then proceeds to gamble them into odds on from double figure prices as well as piling them into yankees!

Edit: Changed "yard" to "connections of the yard"

 

[EC1]

EC1,

I'm one of O'Brien's fiercest critics on here as others will vouch for and whilst I think he's guilty of using the racecourse as a training ground far too more regularly than he should and connections of the yard probably have stopped a few, I don't think he genuinely stops racehorses and then proceeds to gamble them into odds on from double figure prices as well as piling them into yankees!

Edit: Changed "yard" to "connections of the yard"

Stan

I never said he apes Curley..but both of them cost punters money..AOB probably costs them more than Curley..at least you know when Curleys are trying

i know they aren't alike in their methods..but end result is same. ..punter is bottom of pile as far as both trainers are concerned..which is how the whole game is geared ...we all know that its a privy to knowledge game...but Curley is no worse than AOB or other trainers. He is just better at bending the rules than most ..so gets noticed more.

I've nowt against either of them..its our job to try and work out whats happening..but you can't damn one and not other

 

[Cantoris]

at least Curleys triers are pretty obvious

As are Charles Byrnes and Tony Martin triers, but that doesn't make it right. Whether it's a 2/1 shot or a 20/1 shot, horses should be brought to the track in reasonable shape and at least try a little. We all know that horses are not 100% fit the first day they run and most end up being handicapped. Everyone assumes a horse with two duck eggs on its third run is just getting a mark, but then they don't expect it to pop in next time backed from 20/1 to 2/1 and win with a stone in hand. All trainers land a touch every now and again, whether they back it or the owners back it. While not ideal, I can understand. What I don't understand is how Tony Martin can still get a horse rated 85!! I'm not one for handicapping a trainer but if that's the way they are penalised then so be it. Minimum rating 100 for any Byrnes or Martin horse and they are given three more runs before rating is dropped. Let's see how many horses they have in training then!

 

[EC1]

i never said any of this sort of thing is "right"

what isn't right is defending one trainer ..whilst slating another..for losing punters money

 

[LUKE]

Congrats to Barney on the coup.I can't see the problem.

 

[EC1]

the other day on this forum..a horse that cost punters money when it lost..was described as being impressive..but now not trying by another trainer is somehow scandalous...doesn't seem consistent to me

 

[LUKE]

I don't understand the costing punters money arguement-not all punters back 1-3 shots.I presume it's fame and glory you are referring to-I laid it for a 4 figure sum.

 

[EC1]

I don't understand the costing punters money arguement-not all punters back 1-3 shots.I presume it's fame and glory you are referring to-I laid it for a 4 figure sum.

no I wasn't - AOA was the horse I was talking about - total non trier - no thread about it on here..but cost punters money as they weren't informed beforehand that instructions were to not touch the horse.

like i said..its no use people getting hot under collar just about part of the problem of punters not being informed.

if you don't care about the public being kept in the dark.. thats fine..but if we are talking about making racing appealing to outsiders..its not really a good advert to see deception by Curley or any other trainer..if its not deception then maybe we have to change some rules. Alternatively we may as well just advertise the game as an insiders paradise and watch punters turn to poker and other sports...which is already happening anyway.

do we want racing to be seen as an insiders paradise?

personally..i try and dodge around these sorts of events..just don't understand why one or two trainers get pilloried whilst others get applauded for similar antics

 

[LUKE]

How much information do you think you are entitled to.as a close follower of ballydoyle I can guarantee you plenty of their drifters win and plenty of the ones that get backed as if defeat is out of the question get chinned.

 

[EC1]

personally

I don't want any info from any of them..I do my own stuff..but there are people crying on this thread about punters losing money due to not being given information..but only from certain trainers

maybe you should address the question to them

the issue to me is one of treating trainers equally..thats not happening..one gets a pat on the back..whilst others get criticised

 

[bloodnok]

I don't have a problem with this in fact it adds to my enjoyment of the game. Like you said EC1 it is up to the punter to work it out. Non triers are just another factor you have to weigh up when having a bet IMO. Getting to know the likely suspects through experience is part of the appeal to me, like working out fractions.

 

[PRICEWISE2008]

I've given up backing Ballydoyle horses, just can't judge them right.Well done to Barney Curley I say, something about the huge "touch" that I've always admired from afar.

 

[krizon]

Curley, AOB, Prescott... you know where you are with them. You know there'll be three wrong distances or going, then a 'shock' smash on the SP into favourite, and a win. Simples!

 

[EC1]

does it look good to those outside racing who we maybe ought to be trying to coax in though?

you get the..I pay the bills so I want inside info carry on..does that look good..does it make the game look straight

maybe no one is bothered about the game looking straight

like i said..I accept racing for what it is..but anyone reading this and seeing support for coups or deception of any kind are hardly going to want to be involved with horse racing in future are they?

maybe no one is bothered about the image of racing anymore...there are a few issues here aren't they?

its ok..I know who the fiddlers are and so avoid them..yes..so do I..but does it look good to the outside world?

 

[LUKE]

I would say if this makes the papers it wil attract a certain amount of new punters who like the idea of million pound coups.

 

[krizon]

If we roll this out into putting aside personal gains or losses, and look at the ethics of it, EC, as I think you're doing, it's not good in the sense that the horses are not being run on true merit. They're being artificially manipulated to produce a result to benefit a very tiny group. In that, it's not good, full stop. Every horse should be presented to do his best to gain a position on the day - within reason, of course, of knowing when to ease up if he's plainly not handling things and out of contention.

As for the outside world, what it doesn't know, it doesn't worry about. First-time racegoers wouldn't have a clue - they'll be steered by tipsters presenting ideas before racing or they'll be like the lovely lady at Plumpton who backed BLUE-EYED ELOISE "because my grand-daughter's got blue eyes and is called Eloise". It's when punters get to the level of expertise as per those on this forum and others that these things rankle the most.

Possibly it's best to swerve these trainers entirely when punting, or to watch the market closing in and have enough to make you happy if you're right, but not suicidal if you're wrong. We've all had a good moan about 'Sir Bloody' for years, playing the handicaps like a game of chess. We know Curley's a heavy gambling yard, and we know that AOB is using some races as a prep run, not running in all seriousness, for many of his animals.

I don't think this info gets to the outside world, because the outside world isn't reading the racing press. It's not until we hook newbies from being first-time racegoers to steady attendees and then more canny punters that the penny begins to drop, as it has here, that there are a small number of trainers, mostly gamblers themselves, who couldn't give a flying fart about what the public thinks or does.

The BHA can launch any number of inquiries into the running of this and that, but there's always the old Column A and Column B List of Excuses to fall back on. Resented the kickback, didn't handle the turn, didn't like GF, jockey thought he heard the horse gurgle or whistle Dixie... you know the routine. The favourite being 'trying to find the right trip' - as if early homework hasn't indicated to the trainer whether the horse, bred to stay, isn't going to be too handy over 5f!