EC1
On a break
Gareth, spot on re: Shamardal. Problem is Weaver didn;t get the fractions right on Mr Baileys.
not really MJ's fault then?
it doesn't really matter what anyone posts though does it?...you won't change your opinion.
i would rather have horses on the front end of races in the UK..% call says it's teh best place to be...especially in maiden races.
his horses are not always toast when taken on either...many of them battle and win.
not really MJ's fault then?
it doesn't really matter what anyone posts though does it?...you won't change your opinion.
i would rather have horses on the front end of races in the UK..% call says it's teh best place to be...especially in maiden races.
his horses are not always toast when taken on either...many of them battle and win.
Fwiw, I think MJ is one of the best trainers in the country, however much he puts people's backs up by speaking his mind. More horses with talent lose races through getting stuck behind others than for any other reason. His avoid that fate, at least. If they are good enough, they win.
I've only met MJ briefly through being part of a syndicate in the yard a few years ago. I always found him courteous, helpful, informative, and totally without side. Just for the record.
I've only met MJ briefly through being part of a syndicate in the yard a few years ago. I always found him courteous, helpful, informative, and totally without side. Just for the record.
I must be missing something. Mister Baileys was ridden with more restraint in the Dante than the Guineas and "raced keenly" according to the official Form Book (which accords with my own recollection). He didn't get home. He was ridden more prominently at Epsom but still didn't get home. Doesn't the way the horse was ridden at York amount to a diversification of the tactics? It doesn't seem all that "one-dimensional" to me.
The suggestion that Mister Baileys might have won the Derby ridden differently is laughable.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
The man is a cruel b@stard (NAP).
Colin Phillips
At the Start
HT, would you like to expand on that statement?
I would agree that he doesn't "wrap them in cotton wool", and could be coaxed into agreeing that he over-races some, but the majority of his horses look magnificent on track.
I would agree that he doesn't "wrap them in cotton wool", and could be coaxed into agreeing that he over-races some, but the majority of his horses look magnificent on track.
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
He's had some shocking luck with injuries though Colin.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
I'm not sure that I understand what you are inferring there, Martin!?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Just that for a top trainer he's had a number of top horses break down - some would say it's a sign of him over training them.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Right, thanks Martin.
I suppose that accusation could be made, but would that necessarily be classed as cruelty?
I suppose that accusation could be made, but would that necessarily be classed as cruelty?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
I'm not sure - welfare bodies haven't been involved and he is a vet so it's more likely bad luck than over training.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
Colin, I know someone who worked for him and have heard stories. Not that they're needed. Horses fluctuating between running out of their skins and tailing off tells its' own story (as does the injuries IS mentions).
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
There's nothing like evidence is there?
That's a very dodgy basis indeed for libelling someone on a public forum. [/b][/quote]
Like I said, I have the evidence of my own eyes.
He does seem to get a good proportion to the track. But most of his horses are 2yr olds and sent to be trained as such, so he's bound to get a higher rate of attrition than some other yards.
We all hear of big yards in which a lot of young horses break down before even getting to the track.
I find that a lot more worrying. Some of the names I've heard have surprised me.
U
useful
Guest
Gus, re Mr Baileys - you confirm what I already said. He was ridden with restraint but pulled Weavers arms out, which is why he didn;t get home. My suggestions is that if Johnston wasn't so obsessed about getting all his horses to blaze a trail, then maybe Mr Bailey's could have been taught to settle better at home, and then would have had a chance of staying the Derby trip.
I don't see how you can say he failed to stay the 1m2f of the Dante, when he was still in the lead with a furlong and half to go in the Derby?
Yes Weaver got the fractions wrong, but he was riding to orders, the very predictable Johnston edict of "run like a scalded cat in a junkyard".
As regards the comments about Pipe somehow having it easier over the sticks. This is absurd. Keeping a string of horses well enough to obtain the phenomenal strike rates he achieved is far harder over the jumps with the levels of injuries considerably higher.
Given the relatively poor strike rate Johnston performs at, my theory is he would do better if his approach to the tactics of each race was less general and more pragmatic.
Henry Cecil and Steve Cauthen made winning on the front end a fine art in the late 80s, characterised by the great Reference Point. However, they were also able to adapt to the requirements of those horses that needed holding up, Indian Skimmer readily springing to mind.
The basic fact is that Johnston is simply not very good at it, and given the support he enjoys from top class owners, he ought to be displaying greater tactical ability.
I don't see how you can say he failed to stay the 1m2f of the Dante, when he was still in the lead with a furlong and half to go in the Derby?
Yes Weaver got the fractions wrong, but he was riding to orders, the very predictable Johnston edict of "run like a scalded cat in a junkyard".
As regards the comments about Pipe somehow having it easier over the sticks. This is absurd. Keeping a string of horses well enough to obtain the phenomenal strike rates he achieved is far harder over the jumps with the levels of injuries considerably higher.
Given the relatively poor strike rate Johnston performs at, my theory is he would do better if his approach to the tactics of each race was less general and more pragmatic.
Henry Cecil and Steve Cauthen made winning on the front end a fine art in the late 80s, characterised by the great Reference Point. However, they were also able to adapt to the requirements of those horses that needed holding up, Indian Skimmer readily springing to mind.
The basic fact is that Johnston is simply not very good at it, and given the support he enjoys from top class owners, he ought to be displaying greater tactical ability.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
It is certainly quite well known that Johnston both trains his horses hard and has a high attrition rate.
U
useful
Guest
That would seem to be the heart of the problem. Train them to peak fitness and gamble on getting an uncontested lead. As soon as you are contested you eiother get beat or if you manage to win the race you have is far harder than it needed to have been.
If you watch Stateside on ATR the pundits always look for where the pace angle, and whether an easy lead is likely for a given horse, or whether a fight on the front end sets it up for a closer.
Simple, obvious, tactics.
If all your horses are trained hard to go on the front end you are asking for trouble.
Colin, he has won a heck of a lot of money, and races. My point is, given the firepower given to him compared with other trainers, he operates at well below the average one might expect.
If you watch Stateside on ATR the pundits always look for where the pace angle, and whether an easy lead is likely for a given horse, or whether a fight on the front end sets it up for a closer.
Simple, obvious, tactics.
If all your horses are trained hard to go on the front end you are asking for trouble.
Colin, he has won a heck of a lot of money, and races. My point is, given the firepower given to him compared with other trainers, he operates at well below the average one might expect.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
He still appears to have plenty of owners sending him horses so it may be assumed that they are happy with the way he trains.
U
useful
Guest
He is an outspoken and very persuasive person, as is his good lady wife.
Indeed, I remember her waxing lyrical about the ability of Princess Taise on C4 before the Sweet Solera in 2006. Much egg on face 10 minutes later when Fanning under the now familiar orders of "just imagine a Hamas operative is standing behind you with a fully loaded RPG Joe", forced the pace with the 14/1 rag who ended up coming last. A very predictable turn of events.
Indeed, if you have a fancied runner taking on Johnston, all you have to do is ring up the trainer of the rag and say tak ehim on for the lead and if we win we will give you a percentage of the prize.
His list of owners may also have something to do with their desire to spread their stock around the country as opposed to concentrating on Newmarket or Lambourn.
Indeed, I remember her waxing lyrical about the ability of Princess Taise on C4 before the Sweet Solera in 2006. Much egg on face 10 minutes later when Fanning under the now familiar orders of "just imagine a Hamas operative is standing behind you with a fully loaded RPG Joe", forced the pace with the 14/1 rag who ended up coming last. A very predictable turn of events.
Indeed, if you have a fancied runner taking on Johnston, all you have to do is ring up the trainer of the rag and say tak ehim on for the lead and if we win we will give you a percentage of the prize.
His list of owners may also have something to do with their desire to spread their stock around the country as opposed to concentrating on Newmarket or Lambourn.
He didn't "pull Weaver's arms out" at all. I backed him in the race and I was there. I know when a horse I've backed is pulling hard and Mister Baileys wasn't. I agree with the Racing Post comment that he "raced keenly" (which isn't even remotely the same thing as pulling his jockey's arms out) and nothing more. It's worth noting by the way that the comment in Raceform's Flat Annual doesn't mention the horse racing freely or keenly or in fact pulling in any way.
As for the second quote shown above, words fail me.
EC1
On a break
are you sure mr baileys led 1.5 out in the Derby?....my memory was that he weakened when they hit the straight
i might be wrong
i might be wrong
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMKmXHXmAkc
Lost the lead probably 1 1/4f or 1 1/2f out. In truth, he was weakening from about 2 1/2f out but had enough of a lead to stay in front for another furlong or so.
Lost the lead probably 1 1/4f or 1 1/2f out. In truth, he was weakening from about 2 1/2f out but had enough of a lead to stay in front for another furlong or so.
U
useful
Guest
Given his final finishing position in the race, a gallant 4th of 25, I think it is quite clear this horse stayed 1m 2f.
Weaver free wheeled into Tattenham Corner and only appeared to send out distress signals approaching the 2 marker, and as Gareth rightly observed was only caught by the pack between the 1f and 2f poles.
Surely you must agree that ridden with more restraint he would have stayed the trip and had a chance of finishing nearer? To boot him 6 lengths clear coming down the hill was a very mysterious decision indeed, given the stamina doubts surrounding the horse.
As we appear unable to produce a tape of the Dante, we will have to agree to disagree.
As I recall I put his failure to settle down to the new tactics, however I expected the stable to perservere with these tactics were they to have any chance in the Derby. I was at that Derby and couldn't believe what Weaver did. In the absence of any public criticism by Johnston I maintain Weaver rode to orders that day.
If you maintain the horse was simply a non-stayer in the races he contested in excess of a mile, how to you explain his defeat in the Sussex Stakes. My suggestion is the forcing tactics reached new levels of absurdity, the very fast time of the race backing this up.
Incidentally, I never had a penny on Mister Baileys during his racing career nor a bet in any race he contested.
Weaver free wheeled into Tattenham Corner and only appeared to send out distress signals approaching the 2 marker, and as Gareth rightly observed was only caught by the pack between the 1f and 2f poles.
Surely you must agree that ridden with more restraint he would have stayed the trip and had a chance of finishing nearer? To boot him 6 lengths clear coming down the hill was a very mysterious decision indeed, given the stamina doubts surrounding the horse.
As we appear unable to produce a tape of the Dante, we will have to agree to disagree.
As I recall I put his failure to settle down to the new tactics, however I expected the stable to perservere with these tactics were they to have any chance in the Derby. I was at that Derby and couldn't believe what Weaver did. In the absence of any public criticism by Johnston I maintain Weaver rode to orders that day.
If you maintain the horse was simply a non-stayer in the races he contested in excess of a mile, how to you explain his defeat in the Sussex Stakes. My suggestion is the forcing tactics reached new levels of absurdity, the very fast time of the race backing this up.
Incidentally, I never had a penny on Mister Baileys during his racing career nor a bet in any race he contested.