Exotic Dancer And Jonjo O'neill

Can't see what the fuss is about. I'd have thought that most trainers (UK or Ireland) would have tried to make sure that the owner knew the score before anyone else. The stuff about punters being the lifeblood of racing and being entitled to the information first is really only worthy of Betfair or TRF.
 
Archie I've heard some shocking stories from owners of being kept in the dark or even misled by trainers, and some treat owners as nothing short of a nuisance! There have also been stories on here in the past from people who have had very unsatisfactory experiences, esp when they have been in partnerships.

It really pays to do a lot of research before putting your horse with a trainer, as there are quite a few who are rip off merchants [eg bill for all sorts of things the horse never had] and some who don't seem to care much for the horses for which they have responsibility - quite apart from those who simply don't keep owners informed, and don't want them about the place.

I think sheikh is referring here to trainers who won't tell you when a horse is no good, ie has no potential or is a dog - they just keep taking the trianing fees. There are a lot of those around.

Then there are the others with more individual shortcomings: There's one I've been told of who is always soliciting 'tips' for his staff. There are two three I've been told of, who had the horses in the field when they were charging for training fees. There's another who bawls out the staff if the vet is called... tho he refuses to call the vet himself. I could go on.
 
I agree, Archie.

Jonjo is possibly guilty of letting information seep into the public domain about ED before the owner knew. I am afraid that sometimes people forget that it's the owner that pays the bills and actuallyown the horse and the trainer is employed to train the horse and to communicate. The communication with many trainers is sometimes an issue.

Recently we have the stories of Kauto Star possibly being lame when he was seen at the Ascot Stables and now there may be a mole at Jonjo's vet or perhaps one of his own staff giving out information about a high profile Cheltenham horse. I would like to think that Jonjo would have gone public when he felt it was the right time to make an annoucement and once the owner was fully aware there may (or may not) be a problem.

Being a high profile trainer (with horses en route to Cheltenham) clearly has it's drawbacks. To me it's a shame that some punters shout "foul play" when it could be a genuine communication error or perhaps Jonjo was hoping to have some positive news in a few days and now his hand has been forced once the rumour mill started.
 
That's all true Kathy - but in this instance Jonjo actually told the press he was "mystified" by rumours of anything wrong with the horse and that they were unfounded, and he didn't know why the price was drifting.

This was all duly reported on the RP website - albeit only for a few hours - and was blantantly untrue! it's that which is unacceptable, imo

People might have gone on backing ED for large sums on BF on the back of that, esp so soon after the groundless KS scare - when in fact the *IS* something wrong with the horse as was admitted the following day.

When the horse has already been suspended from the betting with one of the big firms, and is drifting into double figures on BF, you can't be waiting for 'better news in a few days'!

Jonjo knew there was a problem, and Ogden and his agent should have been up to speed long before it got out and affected the GC betting. If I were either of them I'd be mad as hell


I'm afraid owners and trainers have to get used to the fact that the times, they are a-changing :what:
 
Originally posted by archie@Feb 28 2008, 07:14 PM
The stuff about punters being the lifeblood of racing and being entitled to the information first is really only worthy of Betfair or TRF.
Click to expand...
On a tangent from this, (I don't use the Betfair forum) but has anyone been calling Mark Winstanley names on it recently? In the context of Noland, and taken from the Weekender;

"Having watched Noland jump like a stag on only his second start over fences at Sandown last Friday I was convinced I had witnessed the most likely winner of the worst Arkle in years. When I finally returned to Chez Couch after visting the odd watering hole, the good judges - well they like to think they are - on the Betfair forum were slaughtering Noland suggesting the 4/1 was a terrible price."
 
I think it's more a case that it's well known that most of the chimps on the Betfair forum are just that, and clueless!!!!
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Feb 28 2008, 07:50 PM
That's all true Kathy - but in this instance Jonjo actually told the press he was "mystified" by rumours of anything wrong with the horse and that they were unfounded, and he didn't know why the price was drifting.

This was all duly reported on the RP website - albeit only for a few hours - and was blantantly untrue! it's that which is unacceptable, imo
Click to expand...
No one knows the reasons why Jonjo said this but perhaps Jonjo wanted to speak to the owner of the horse before making an official statement, afterall he would have known he would HAVE to make a statement at some stage. He may have been buying time. As much as we would like to think that owners are available to speak to their trainers 24/7, perhaps, just perhaps there was no one available to take Jonjo's call.

A top trainer - coming up to Cheltenham must have a million and one things to worry about, and to think that he has someone ready to blow the whistle when something didn't look quite right really must stick in his claw.

Who would be a top trainer in the lead up to The Cheltenham Festival, eh? shrug::
 
The owners were fully aware of Exotic Dancer's condition when Jonjo announced that he was "mystified" as to the horse being taken out of the race. That was clearly nothing more than a lie.
 
Kathy, the problem hadn't just happened - it had been obvious for a while!

The whole thing is just weird
 
There is absolutely no way the owners of Exotic Dancer were not informed of this. Yes trainers are busy but this is the second biggest owner in the yard and the owner of the highest rated horse in the yard. He was fully aware (and rightly so) of the situation.
 
No doubt if there is some sort of conspiracy going on then Mr. Ogden (very important big owner) will be talking with his feet very soon.

I wish I knew how everyone apparently knows about conversations that only the owner and trainer were presumably privvy too? :suspect:
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Feb 28 2008, 10:31 PM
No doubt if there is some sort of conspiracy going on then Mr. Ogden (very important big owner) will be talking with his feet very soon.

I wish I knew how everyone apparently knows about conversations that only the owner and trainer were presumably privvy too? :suspect:
Click to expand...
You have answered the question yourself Kathy.

Yes he is a very big and important owner....for that very reason he would have been kept informed of any develops particularly as this is such a long running matter and such a high profile horse.
 
So you don't know the actual content of any conversations they may have had then?

Communication in big yards with owners is not all it possibly could be at times. It is a bizarre situation with Exotic Dancer but as always there is probably a bigger picture to this story that unfortunately we are not privvy to nor never will be.

If big, very important owner Mr. Ogden is desperately unhappy about this turn of events with ED and Jonjo's memory lapse, then no doubt he will be removing all his horses and looking for a top class trainer whose communication skills are somewhat more accurate and up to date than Jonjo's .
 
So you don't know the actual content of any conversations they may have had then?
Click to expand...

I would have thought that was obvious.

What we do know is the Odgen was talking to Jonjo O'Neill during the day....as was confirmed by the owner. That same day the horse was taken out of bookies lists and went out to near 30/1 on Betfair. Then that very same evening O'Neill gave the RP an interview stating he was "mystified".

So no I do not know it word for word, but we know the owner was told that day, the bookies smelt a rat yet Jonjo that evening still gave the horse a complete clean bill of health. Around noon the next day the owners came out with the truth.
 
Could it be explained by a major disagreement over the seriousness of the injury between O'Neill and Ogden/Simpson?
 
It's all very strange, and something's clearly amiss at Jackdaws.

Ogden is notoriously one of the more difficult owners to deal with, but to some extent this might be reported thus, as has been mentioned, he is hardly media friendly and not very likely to attract positive coverage for it. I remember reading some sympathetic article about Nicky Henderson refusing to discuss Ogdens horses with the press a few years ago. The article remarked that Nicky is normally one of the more obliging trainers but had, had a strip torn off him by Ogden and was "embarrassed" and "apologetic" I believe the words used were, not to be able to oblige thus.

It also points to something or someone being a tad malcontent in the yard I'd have thought too. From my limited vista it looks as if he's running a team that isn't necessarily pulling together
 
That's an astute observation Warbler, and it seems clear that some of the staff at the yard can't be trusted to keep their mouths shut. But that happens in a lot of yards, esp with so many people prepared to pay good money to poorly paid youngsters for inside info

The world has changed and I doubt Ogden has. He's looked like a fossil for at least twenty years already after all :eek:

I believe the media problem was no doubt only one of the reasons NH and Ogden parted company, and you'd think after all the success Nicky had with RO's horses, he would have been loyal and content, but no. As we see so often in racing, the very rich really are a different breed

I suppose really Jonjo was in a no-win situation if he'd been told to say nothing, after all "no comment" would have led to a run on the bank!!
 
Well I've worked in places that had an unhappy and disgruntled staff before now, and have an appreciation of what they'll do once their loyalty goes. (in fairness I'd probably conceed to having agitated them into subversive activities too) and I know we've been prepared to bring our own team down before now in order to get rid of a certain manager, whilst gambling that we'd survive in another form or gain employment elsewhere if needed. To my limited perspective this kind of low grade sabotage exhibits all the hallmarks of malcontents.

The seriousness of it though I can't speculate on, as you say, it might be purely down to low incomes etc I wouldn't be quite so certain though, as it was Ladbrokes wasn't it who removed ED from the list. It points to the bookie having a line into the yard, but what I can't understand is why Laddies would want to take a horse out of their book if they were privvy to inside info that it wasn't going to run etc, surely they'd be wanting to attract money on to it?
 
Yes I suppose that's correct - I hadn't thought of that angle.
The whole thing is most odd, whichever way you hold it up and look at it :what:
 
Perhaps Ladbrokes knew the information was not supposed to be common knowledge and wanted to show how smart/scrupulous they are or wanted to hang JJ out to dry.
 
Well in that respect Ladbrokes come out of it quite well, but Jonjo needs to be concerned that a bookie is finding out about his horses welfare before he does. Or even if he was throwing up a smokescreen to buy time, another possibility, then it all points to things being done over a very short time period (hours?).

Jonjo probably isn't bright enough to think things through on the spot, and at one level his denial wasn't so much a denial but a rebuttale which he'd know he'd then have to retract at some point later in the day. Even then, it appears that Simpson has initiated the contact. Either way he's going to give a poor impression of his operation to punters, and owners alike.

If you were a malcontent staff member seekng to sabotage the organisation how would you do it? Well ultimately you'd want to erode the owners base confidence? those who have the power to damage the trainer. Someone as crochety as Ogden would be an ideal target. The other way of course would be to try and find a way of chipping at the horses performance (now you might argue that Jonjo needs no help in this department) but it was only a few years ago that he was consistantly amongst the fav's for being 'top trainer' at Cheltenham. His performance has dropped off in the last few seasons.

Personally though, I'd have thought anyone who is engaged in wantonly undermining the trainer is more likely to have a cash motive and probably feels no real connection with the employer any longer
 
Harrington is an Irish trainer I would trust above all other Irish trainers in terms of the horse running on its merits. I am sure someone will point one out but I find it hard to remember watching a horse of hers in a race and thinking it was not running on its merits.
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Feb 28 2008, 09:46 PM
What we do know is the Odgen was talking to Jonjo O'Neill during the day....as was confirmed by the owner. That same day the horse was taken out of bookies lists and went out to near 30/1 on Betfair. Then that very same evening O'Neill gave the RP an interview stating he was "mystified".
Click to expand...
As I understand it the sequence of events is somewhat different??

Tuesday - horse starts drifting on Betfair and is removed from the betting by the Magic Sign.
Wednesday Morning - reports in RP of injury to ED. JO'N "mystified".
Later Wed Morning - Barry Simpson talks to JO'N about the injury following the reports and then speaks to Ogden.
Wed Afternoon - RP publishes the piece which heads this thread.

That would then leave the explanation of Ogden's difficulty as being perfectly plausible in the sense of explaining JO'N's original "mystified" comments.

Leaving us with the question of how the horse came to start drifting. Without knowledge of who was doing the original laying it is impossible to determine precisely why or even to come close to a reason by anything other than luck. It could have been a malcontent (the least satisfactory suggestion to me), it could have been a hard up opportunist (the most likely suggestion) or it could have been a deliberate and concerted attempt to make substantial sums of money by someone in a more senior position. None of the information that we have points definitely in any of these directions IMO.

Why did Ladbrokes chose to remove the horse from the betting? What did they stand to gain - "good guy" publicity or Highlighting the original issue of the horse being laid? They could give a million pounds to charity and they still wouldn't be the good guys. As someone else pointed out, they stood to gain financially from leaving the horse in the betting. Therefore the reason we want lies elsewhere - my suggestion is that they wanted to highlight the horse being laid to a greater extent than would have been the case had it simply been a drift on Betfair.
 
Taking that line of thought a bit further down the line. It stands to reason that there was some aspect of the laying that Ladbrokes disapproved of. Would they be more likely to disapprove of an opportunist or a senior layer?

It also stands to reason that would be more likely to disapprove of laying that they were not aware of in advance. Which doesn't really take us much further forward - because we don't know the level of information that they usually receive from within the yard.

It would be interesting to know how Ladbrokes usually stand on those JO'N horses which tend to lose (ie do they have a clear "in"). It would also be interesting to know the value to which the horse was laid by the original layer. A hard up opportunist would, presumably, not be able to come up front with the cash required to lay the horse to substantial levels?
 
Back
Top