Jeremy Noseda Interview - Racing Post

[davidjohnson]

Quite a good interview today with a man I continue to find it pretty difficult to warm to but I thought it a prety hypocritical stance of him when he says in one breath

'I'll say what I want to say and won't not say something just because it suits somebody else for me not to say it'

Then when he speaks about the press he advises them...

'Don't write in your analysis that this was a very poor race. There are a lot of people who've put in a lot of money, a lot of effort and a lot of time to get to this point and it's not right to make throaway comments about their horses.'

The simple fact, is there are plenty of poor races, with even more poor horses contesting them, and failure to acknowledge thatw ould involve not doing a job properly, something that Noseda himself would recognise judging by some of his other comments would be a bigger crime.

 

[Euronymous]

Tough shit. Any comments on poor horses have to be taken in context. kauto took someone's comments on Coordinated Cut in good cheer before the Irish Derby.

Some of these trainers are way too precious for my liking.

 

[krizon]

You can chuck as much money as you like at a yearling or a 2 y.o., you can send it to specialist handlers, horse whisperers and try three different trainers and give it two years to 'mature'... but if it's no good, no amount of money, effort and time will make it into what it just can't be. But "poor" is all about relativity - I'm sure there are few of us who'd think we had a "poor" horse if it ran in the Eclipse, for example, but forum members on here have denounced the race as just that. There's "poor" even in top races, even with well-bred or high-priced horses contesting them - for all their blood and money, the term implies they're not terribly good for the level they're supposed to be.

 

[Gamla Stan]

Never been too fond of him and this just makes me dislike him even more. He's trained some top class animals in his time and he should be more concerned about becoming the top of his profession rather than bemoaning about people complaining about his lesser lights.

The Racing Post have every right to distinguish between a poor maiden and a good maiden, it is in the public's interest. There is a generally well established perceived view of a "poor race" and he's ran plenty of horses in them.

For what it's worth, I didn't think the Eclipse was poor Kri. It had an Arc 5th and Dubai Sheema Classic winner against a Breeders Cup Classic 3rd and Champion Stakes winner. It simply lacked quality in depth and a "champion" three year old for me.

 

[Cantoris]

I enjoyed reading about him. Clearly the Sheikh Mo thing ended in tears. Can anyone shed light as to what exactly happened? Also, seems to put across that he learned a lot from Dunlop but wasted time with Gosden the second time around, or else Gosden was lucky to have a real talent like him around. Not sure but someone might know more.

He's clearly a good trainer and clearly dedicated to his owners, who provide him with his income. Where he falls down is that racing gives him the arena for him to succeed and owners to race their horses. So he needs to do his part to promote the game. If a hack peeves him off, I don't mind him boycotting that hack but they can't all have done it. And when I mean peeved off, I'm not talking about the difference in a good or bad race but telling an untruth. It is my experience that hacks take statements completely out of context to create a stir so they can write another piece from the offended party.

 

[krizon]

I didn't think the Eclipse lacked some quality results from its runners, either, Gamla, but exactly what you say - no depth. That seemed to make it poor in some people's eyes, although it might've done with a bit more give to the ground, which could've seen more entrants. In spite of whatever amount of water might've been put on it, two solid weeks of very hot weather would have pretty much wicked the moisture away in a few hours!