N Martin - Baddam

Yes, he still owns him. Sadly, out the money in 5th today, but he's 8 now (I had to check, I thought he was about 6!), so slowing down in his old age. Remember when Noel answered how the horse got his name? He liked the Pink Panther films and named him for the start of the music score: "bad-dam, bad-dam, bad-dam, baddam, badaaaam... "!
 
I think he was having a joke at the interviewers expense (sound familiar) as the horse was previously owned (and named) by Hamdan al Maktoum.
 
I didn't think Channel 4 covered themselves in glory with their post race Guineas nterviews. First they interview Henry Cecil when the enquiry was announced. Then they go on and interview the owner and then when the horse gets chucked out they go back and ask Henry how he feels!! Thought it was daft. Why couldn't they just wait till after the enquiry.
 
I thought the same, too, Cantoris. Absolute muddle and mess. Oh, DJ, that's spoiled the story for me! On the other hand, maybe Sh. Hamdan liked the Pink Panther tune...
 
Only to those who backed her.... To me ? Not a penn'orth of difference, I'm afraid. When it comes to wins with such tiny margins, then I would have preferred a dead heat outcome, with both camps sharing the glory equally.

If anything, to me it showed SPECIAL DUTY lacks a little courage to have been intimidated as she was by the other filly going across her - some gutsier fillies would have bored straight back! But they are only 3yos, so that's probably asking too much!

However, dems de rules and it's the same for everyone. Sometimes...
 
JACQUELINE QUEST would've been knocked clean into the stands by SONGSHEET (the filly) if she'd tried those polo tricks on her! Boff! And quite possibly gnash! as well! :lol:
 
davidjohnson said:
I think he was having a joke at the interviewers expense (sound familiar) as the horse was previously owned (and named) by Hamdan al Maktoum.
Click to expand...

Are you sure DJ? The RP has Baddam under Martin's ownership as a 2yo, and it was mentioned in The Guardian that he's had him since a yearling.
 
Songsheet said:
Only to those who backed her.... To me ? Not a penn'orth of difference, I'm afraid...
Click to expand...

I didn't have a penny on either of them, having backed Hannon's filly, but I believe it would have been shameful not to promote Special Duty.
 
Grim interview with Mr Martin in the RP today - it seems only his horses are stopping a trip to Dignitas.
 
Same thing a couple of years ago - he's vowed to go there at some point. The reaction from the neo-Nazis in Germany who crippled him was 'good'. I don't blame him, considering that every hour of his life needs the assistance of other people, and he doesn't have his wife to even help him through his terrible disabilities. I'd have asked to be shot long ago, horses or not.
 
I know rules are rules etc and it was the 'correct' decision to take but, bearing in mind how those rules have been bent over the years by various people in charge and also bearing in mind how racing really, really needs as much positive PR and great stories as it can, if a dead heat had been declared and with Mr Martin's story to tell, how much better the result could have been.

Somehow, winning a second Guineas on disqualification by Juddmonte doesn't have the same appeal.
 
It's a huge shame that JACQUELINE didn't keep the race, but Queally get a hefty fine and ban to teach him to watch his line better. Enough to dent his 10%, anyway! Under the particular circumstances of this event, I'd have felt my horse's promotion was just a little bit tainted by another slap to Noel Martin, even though getting a 2nd would be great - but not by being demoted.
 
Songsheet said:
I know rules are rules etc and it was the 'correct' decision to take but, bearing in mind how those rules have been bent over the years by various people in charge and also bearing in mind how racing really, really needs as much positive PR and great stories as it can, if a dead heat had been declared and with Mr Martin's story to tell, how much better the result could have been.

Somehow, winning a second Guineas on disqualification by Juddmonte doesn't have the same appeal.
Click to expand...

I really really agree on that. Initially I thought it simply to be the correct decision, but as Songy said, rembering how often the Stewards did not throw winner out who clearly hampered other horses far far more severely, it does leave a sour taste and one starts to wonder if some high-profile owners do get away with it and the smaller ones are there to be shown how its done "proper"... ?! :( :confused:
 
So, we don't want the correct winner of a race to be called now?!

By all means feel sympathy for the owner of Baddam, but to want his filly to be awarded the race because he is disabled is, frankly, ridiculous!
 
Hamm - try reading what I wrote .... nowhere did I say the filly should have been awarded the race because of Martin's disability - I believe the correct result should have been a dead heat because it would be good for racing, it was jockey error rather than the horse's inability to win and, because Cat is absolutely right, horses have kept races that have been questionable interpretations of the rules before. A dead heat would not have punished punters, it would have been great publicity and I am sure neither party would have objected to that outcome. However, I can see why that wasn't done and that's that. No need to get heated over it - it's merely my opionan and a minority one at that.
 
Give the race to the first past the post or give the race to the interfered with second. But a dead heat? Why? It wouldn't be good for racing; it would make it a laughing stock - effectively making up the results.
 
Unfortunately, it can't be a dead heat when the photo result would be posted for all to see, which would show one nose in front of t'other, whichever way round they were. When judges use magnifying glasses to separate horses literally by pixels these days, the true dead heat is virtually an act of God. (Who's had it on large with St. Dennis for such a result.)
 
Gareth Flynn said:
It wouldn't be good for racing;
Click to expand...

Err... you think it isn't already ?? :cool:

Look, you're all right - I know it can't be done, fair enough. I don't bet, so I obviously don't have the same strength of opinion about these matters as many on here and can't be arsed to start falling out about it either...


Wha'evva - yawn.....
 
How is it not good for racing to throw out a horse which broke the rules thus stopping the best horse from winning the race?? This isn't a Kempton seller we're talking about, it's a Classic, with other matters to consider than merely winning the race and the rules must be followed. It was unfortunate for all concerned that the filly was demoted but fair's fair and the connections of the French filly would have had every reason to spit tacks had she not been awarded the race, and rightly so. Talk of dead heating is pointless as they didn't dead heat and Gareth is right, it would very much make UK racing a laughing stock.

Rules simply cannot be ignored through a vote of sympathy for an unfortunate owner; I'm sure Noel Martin would be horrified to think that his filly might have unfairly kept the race through no other reason than he is disabled. Whatever next?
 
Shadow Leader said:
How is it not good for racing to throw out a horse which broke the rules thus stopping the best horse from winning the race?? This isn't a Kempton seller we're talking about, it's a Classic, with other matters to consider than merely winning the race and the rules must be followed. It was unfortunate for all concerned that the filly was demoted but fair's fair and the connections of the French filly would have had every reason to spit tacks had she not been awarded the race, and rightly so. Talk of dead heating is pointless as they didn't dead heat and Gareth is right, it would very much make UK racing a laughing stock.

Rules simply cannot be ignored through a vote of sympathy for an unfortunate owner; I'm sure Noel Martin would be horrified to think that his filly might have unfairly kept the race through no other reason than he is disabled. Whatever next?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, SL.
 
So does that mean you think it'd be okay if it was a Kempton Seller, SL? That's what I'm inferring from that remark. And, as we have all shrieked about often enough on this and other forums, plenty of barging, bumping and boring animals have retained their wins, while their jockeys have had a little tiny ban or miniature fine. Rules are indeed rules, but there's been enough discord on this forum to indicate that many people don't think they're applied consistently enough to be fair. So, are they to be applied to glaringly public occasions, but kinda squirmed around at lesser events? Let's all see what we think the next time it happens.
 
I can't put my finger on it, but there is something really disturbing about seeing this guy interviewed in the RP.
 
Back
Top