Jonjo O'neill Horses Still Unwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter useful
  • Start date Start date
U

useful

Guest
Following the 1.40 at Folkestone, another Jonjo Horse disappoints (Another Brother).

Amazingly he was backed into favouritism, even though the yard is in dire trouble in terms of the health of the horses, and following a recent 2/5 Fav being turned over.

Should the rules be changed to protect punters? Should trainers who's string are palpably sick be forced to make regular public statements about the horses health and what measures are being taken to improve the situation.

Also should BHA vets visit such yards and prevent them from running horses until a clean bill of health is assured?

At the moment (and with the Alan Berry case fresh in the mind) it is possible for trainers to run sick horses in tandem with modern betting exchanges that allow individuals to lay horses. I am not saying Mr O'Neill would ever do such a thing, but the correct set of circumstances are in place for anyone wishing to defraud the public in this way.
 
Firstly welcome to the forum Useful. Interesting first post….

I understand where you are coming from but in this day and age punters need to take responsibility for such decisions themselves. It is easy for anyone to find out the recent stable form of their selection via websites or the Racing Post. Everything doesn’t or shouldn’t be expected to be handed on a plate to punters.

As for shutting down a yard…I don’t think that’s fair or under the remit of the BHA. As long as the horses are in general good health and condition they should run.
 
I agree that some trainers should be more open but do we know what is troubling JJ's string? Does he? and is it anything to do with health?

Some might say that this sort of form and regularly desperately disappointing runs is all part and parcel of the stable in question.
 
I see what you're saying Gallileo, but I suspect you are more astute that a lot of punters.

If you take Another Borther as a case in point. The RP Spotlight at no stage referred to the poor form of the O'Neill yard.

Unless the betting shop you're in has a full copy of the RP, punters have to rely on the broadsheet cards, which do not include the recent form of the yard.

Even if they did, some punters may conclude, this one is being backed so maybe the yard knows the horses are on the way back.

You and I, punting from our PCs have all the info we need and watch RUK and ATR so know the up to date form of a given yard. Most punters in the shops wont.

I think the current situation is therefore slightly unfair in that people will have bets not knowing the full picture.

In anycase, if you train horses and know they are not well enough to do themselves justice, there is nothing to stop you running them and laying them. That is the real problem with the sport at present, and all that is needed is a bit more will on the part of the authorities to tighten things up.
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 21 2008, 03:08 PM
At the moment (and with the Alan Berry case fresh in the mind) it is possible for trainers to run sick horses in tandem with modern betting exchanges that allow individuals to lay horses. I am not saying Mr O'Neill would ever do such a thing,
Click to expand...
I'll say it then :D .
 
Market moves are determined by supply and demand - if there's enough demand for a horse at 3/1 it will shorten as the true market value is shorter, if there's no demand for a horse at 5/1 the opposite will happen.

If punters want to pile into a horse from a yard out of form and who will come into his own over 3m+ and fences then that's up to them.

All betting shops that I've ever worked in or been in within the past 10 years have had a copy of the Racing Post Useful so there's not really any excuse, most punters in the shops are mugs and will back the favourite whether you tell them the horse has three legs or the trainer wouldn't know a horse if it kicked him etc.

Without wanting to go over old ground I think the thing that is troubling the JJ O'Neill yard is probably JJ himself.

I forgot to add, welcome to the forum Useful :)
 
Hi Clivex, your reply came in a bit later so here goes.

I know O'Neill had the bug a couple of years back and came back with a vengeance once things had cleared up.

I think the form of the yard, and the number of runners suggest all is not well.

What concerns me is this one was backed into favouritism. Who backed it and why?

Stable money? Tipping line nap?

Whatever, the fact remains the trainer in question should be under some sort of obligation to publicise his position, and the trade press should pass this on. A simple "red symbol" or something similar next to the trainers name in the RP, sanctioned by a BHA vet having visited the yard would communicate to punters to treat with caution (or, alternatively, as I suggested, the yard is shut and quarantined).

I would also point out the O'Neill yard seems to be susceptible to these bugs, and yet I cannot recall a time when Paul Nicholls has had a serious and prolonged case of the virus. Is there something he could share with other trainers?
 
Hello Irish Stamp.

Like with Galileo, I take your point. However in my experience the copy of the RP is always hogged by some bloke in a suit on his lunch hour!!!!

Seriously though, a lot of people in the shops pop in while on a lunch hour, or out shopping.

These are the folk who probably dont spend a great deal of time reading the form, and may follow the market. They probably bet to small stakes, but add them up around the UK on a daily basis and the revenue they bring the nation is not insignificant.

Anyone who has read the form and follows the sport closely deserves no sympathy for backing Another Brother.

It just seems a very odd state of affairs though that something obvious (the state of the yard's form) is excluded from the media's pre-race analysis.

An afterthought. How much money would it have taken to be backed into favouritism on a wet Monday at Folkestone. And could you manipulate the on-course market but lay on the exchanges and make a profit? Just a thought.
 
A couple of thoughts occur to me.

You seem to indicate a fear for the horse being laid on Betfair (or the likes) but then indicate that mug punters in betting shops are the ones losing out due to lack of info (which Betfair punters arguably have). Which seems a little contradictory to me.

My second thought is that putting a big red dot next to a trainers name when the yard has a "virus" of some description or other would then lead to horses being laid on Betfair at much geater prices, thus leading to the possibility of them being "filled in" when those in the know are aware that the problem has passed but the BHA man hasn't been invited back to remove said red dot. An unscrupulous yard could take better advantage of that than by laying a short priced horse to lose.

Oh and welcome to the forum. :D
 
Unless the betting shop you're in has a full copy of the RP, punters have to rely on the broadsheet cards, which do not include the recent form of the yard.
Click to expand...

Welcome useful first of all.

The RP website is the obvious port of call for stable form. There's no real excuse.....

There have been theories put forward by some well informed people taht the location of Jackdaws Castle has something to do with the susceptibility to viruses. I have no idea but when comparing with Paul Nichols, i think theres a lot more to it than the health of the horses

Again without reigniting old debates, I just sometimes think that JJ and his team are not as tuned into their horses as might be expected.
 
Fair enough. Whatever the solution, I dont think the current state of affairs works in the favour of all parties.

As for the RP website - yes, I know all the form is there, but people standing in a betting shop dont have access to it.

I agree the "red symbol" is also open to abuse in the reverse way, however I am simply throwing in ideas to try and make things better.

Not sure simmo why I am being contradictory. I am suggesting a scenario such as this:

1) People in the know manipulate a small on course market by backing a horse they know cannot win.
2) Betting shop punters back the market move.
3) People in the know lay the horse the backed on course in an Exchange market where liquidity is signifcantly higher than on course.

I dont purport to be an expert in betting matters, and maybe this theory is unworkable. So I guess I am simply putting it up to see if anyone with more knowledge of the strength of oncourse markets feel that it could be done? I guess a bookmaker, for instance would stand to gain a lot with this method especially with the right contacts in the right stable?

Clivex, I think it is evident from what you say that there are, shall we say, "issues" at Jackdaws.

What staggers me is a man with JP's billions puts up with it? Of course, he is an ex-bookie tho..............
 
Yes...but slowly and surely...

Franchoek, Straw Bear and Binocular...

and a few others too no doubt. Better JP horses are starting to find their way to other top trainers
 
To be fair I imagine the sale of Franchoek was conditional on satying with King maybe?

Findon has had a McManus representative for a number of years now, and Henderson is also not new to the green and yellow hoops.

Rumours abounded two years ago JJ was gonna get the bullet and nothing came of it.

He must have some hold over McManus - maybe he knows too much of what went on in the past?
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 21 2008, 02:38 PM
I would also point out the O'Neill yard seems to be susceptible to these bugs, and yet I cannot recall a time when Paul Nicholls has had a serious and prolonged case of the virus. Is there something he could share with other trainers?
Click to expand...
Paul or Jonjo?
 
"Paul could share", in terms of stable hygiene.

Oh dear, just watched Money Line win at 14/1!

How must backers of Another Brother feel?

I guess that was just a bad race!
 
Stradbrook just won as well at 10/1!!!!

Which I had a win double!!!!!

Maybe JJ read this thread!!!!! :angy:
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 21 2008, 03:11 PM
Not sure simmo why I am being contradictory.
Click to expand...
On one hand you suggest that given the right information betting shop punters would not back the horse, and on the other you suggest that punters who have access to yard form info would back the horse, despite that knowledge? (As part of the laying process). Of course, I could be mis-reading your post, it has been known! :P

I'm not sure that scenario you outline would be worthwhile. Any backing on course to create "the gamble" would reduce the amount one could win from subsequently laying the horse. If you know it's not going to run to form the most prudent thing to me would be to simply lay it. Increases the exposure if it does win, but also increases the profit if it doesn't and given that the layer in question has info that suggests it won't, makes that the optimum solution?
 
Its all academic now anyway Simmo. With the two outsiders winning the yard can clearly get some of them to win. But obviously not 2/5 or "well backed" 5/2 favs!
 
I don't know anything about the layout of Jonjo's yard, but David Nicholson didn't have those kinds of problems there, and they seem to happen regularly these days, so there has to be some kind of improvement in stable regime which could help matters. I do know that Paul Nicholls has two main stable blocks, each of which he empties, steam hoses, and repaints EVERY SUMMER while the horses are on their hols, for this very reason.

On the general subject of the 'virus' this covers a wide range of respiratory infections from mildly stuffy nose to real sickness requiring the shutting down of the yard, and can have many causes. It would be impossible for a vet to judge which part of a yard to quarantine, and unfair anyway, as some horses don't get affected. And it's rare a whole yard is under the weather, given the ad hoc layout of most yards, esp old NH yards which usually have separate sections making it fairly easy to keep horses apart.

Responsible trainers won't run horses which show symptoms of the virus, but sometimes they don't show til the horse or a few horses run a bit under par. I know of a salaried trainer who left an owners yard for refusing to run the horses which were all showing symptoms or virus [for reasons beyond his control but within that of the owner].

On the matter of punters: as I've said many a time I don't see why mug punters who just follow the money without doing their own research should deserve the least sympathy or consideration. Some of us put a huge amount of time [and money] into getting as much info as we can, and thinking long and hard about races we bet in, and why should we not have the advantage when we've put in almost full-time research?

The kind of mug punters in the betting shops who don't even bother to read the RP [and I'm usually the only one in there with my own copy] are gambling addicts, who also bet on fruit machines and 'virtual' or cartoon racing. Caveat emptor - they can do their groundwork if they want to make an informed choice. I couldn't give a monkey's left one if they fill the coffers of the bookies, so long as some of that money goes back into racing via the levy; and if their money helps to shorten a false favourite, that's all to the good for the shrewder punter.

Welcome to the forum useful.
We always love having the same old arguments - esp as we never come to a conclusion :P
 
One thing that is well worth bearing in mind is that a lot of Jonjo's horses are overbet and go off far shorter than they should. Without going into semantics too much there are one or two very large staking punters who steam into a lot of Jonjo's shorter priced horses, in particular those running in novice hurdles, novice chases and bumpers. This doesn't help Jonjo's stats when it comes to beaten short priced favourites.

I'm also of the opinion voiced on this thread already that a lot of the horses getting beaten possibly has more to do with the ability of the trainer!! I've been half expecting his P45 to be served for a little while - who knows, maybe he knows where the bodies are buried?! :laughing:
 
Mmmm, another forum, and another very low opinion posted of the "mug punter".

You are entitled to your opinion, the problem is the "mugs" keep the show on the road. If on eday all the "mugs" realised playing online poker on Betfair was as likely to win them money as betting on a sport that has "issues" then racing would descend into nothing more than point to pointing and flapping races.

The "big hitters" who presumably win for a time are few and far between. And most people who bet big and win big have accounts closed in any case.

I really do not have a problem with the small punters in the shops - and I do value the contribution they make to racing. I think racing, or at least the bodies regulating the industry ought to consider the fairness with which punters are treated.

In a heavily regulated industry, misleading statements in publications are very seriously penalised!
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 21 2008, 02:08 PM
At the moment (and with the Alan Berry case fresh in the mind) it is possible for trainers to run sick horses in tandem with modern betting exchanges that allow individuals to lay horses. I am not saying Mr O'Neill would ever do such a thing, but the correct set of circumstances are in place for anyone wishing to defraud the public in this way.
Click to expand...
I've said for years that the exchanges have created a new and fair easier avenue for certain individuals to take advantage. This is where the racing authorities need a fleet of lads looking at the betting patterns of horses. I know the guy that does it for the Irish racing and he does not have enough staff. Forget about going for the high profile guys. This was no doubt advocated by the exchanges who would prefer to see the top guy go down and for it to go away than for the consistent smell to continue. It is the smaller guys that need to be caught. The stable lads, the farriers, the work riders etc. This will restore confidence to the punter. Trying to figure out whether a stables form is effected by a virus is dangerous. For example, Michael O'Briens yard was in dire trouble before crimbo and then he popped up with a few bumper winners.
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 21 2008, 03:25 PM
To be fair I imagine the sale of Franchoek was conditional on satying with King maybe?

Findon has had a McManus representative for a number of years now, and Henderson is also not new to the green and yellow hoops.

Rumours abounded two years ago JJ was gonna get the bullet and nothing came of it.

He must have some hold over McManus - maybe he knows too much of what went on in the past?
Click to expand...
JP rarely buys a horse and moves it to another yard. Loyalty is paramount to JP. That's why he still has Frank Berry as his racing manager and Charlie Swan as a trainer. I'm sure JP made plenty out of information or rides given by JJ as a jock. He is rewarding that loyalty and it is one of the reasons why JP is not more successful, he needs to reward success as much as loyalty.
 
Back
Top