• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Peter Toole

Negative CT scan must be good news. I imagine they are resting him again artificially so that his system can concentrate on mending the injury. Sounding more upbeat now, it seems, which is brilliant. Come on, young feller!
 
Seems he is progressing as well as can be hoped, which is really good to hear.

There is a lesson to be learned in this for those ridiculous owners who insist on having a runner in these contests that is hopelessly out of their depth - they may say, 'what is the harm?'. It's quite clear there can be plenty of harm, either to the jockey or horse, but certainly not to the owner..

That horse should have been nowhere near that race, and I hope Toole continues his recovery and we don't learn the lesson the hardest way..
 
Not sure what you're getting at here, Hamm.

As far as I can see it was the first time that the horse had fallen.

Agreed he was probably running out of his class but his fall was at the first of the Mildmay course. Hardly tired and the fact that he had completed at Sandown, even it was in last place, that course is a fair test of a jumper.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Good news! Hopefully he will keep going in the right direction. He was moving his legs yesterday which should be a positive sign
 
I agree with Colin on this one.

You clearly have a problem with horses like this running in races like this, Hamm. Possibly with just cause. However, this doesn't prove your point in any way, shape or form. He fell at the first!
 
Hamm said:
Seems he is progressing as well as can be hoped, which is really good to hear.

There is a lesson to be learned in this for those ridiculous owners who insist on having a runner in these contests that is hopelessly out of their depth - they may say, 'what is the harm?'. It's quite clear there can be plenty of harm, either to the jockey or horse, but certainly not to the owner..

That horse should have been nowhere near that race, and I hope Toole continues his recovery and we don't learn the lesson the hardest way..
Click to expand...

I spoke to the owner/trainer last week at work and he told me that he had noticed there were very few entries even though there was decent prize money down to sixth place and so decided to enter as even fifth or sixth place would mean a pay out. The horse hadn't fallen previously.

They had hoped to have Felix de Giles riding obviously plans changed.
 
Good to see more upbeat reports on the RP about Peter.

Sorry to report that another young jockey, Richard (Dickie) Hawkins, brother of Giles, is now in intensive care after a fall at Taunton tonight. Apparently hes had a scan and there is no fracture or bleeding but they are keeping him sedated. Hope hes ok - I've got to know the family down here and they are very close with one or both parents at either the points where Dickie is riding or with Giles.
 
It was mentioned that Giles has an arm in a sling at the moment, so once they're both better, j/j, please line their pants with Velcro! Very best wishes for the latest casualty to come through just fine, too.
 
Bar the Bull said:
I agree with Colin on this one.

You clearly have a problem with horses like this running in races like this, Hamm. Possibly with just cause. However, this doesn't prove your point in any way, shape or form. He fell at the first!
Click to expand...

Of course I do, what rational person wouldn't. He was barely rated 100, and was running against horses more than 3 stone better. Yes, he fell at the first so my point is a general one. Horses rated 100 are much more likely to fall against horses like Finian's than running in their own grade. Imagine he fell when they were going too fast for him and he brought down the favourite? It's nonsense.
 
Hamm, I'm not sure that this is the appropriate thread for such a discussion, as young Peter's not out of the woods yet, but why would a horse rated 100 be "much more likely to fall against horses like Finian's than running in their own grade"? He only got as far as the first fence, so he was hardly even competing at that point. I can see that a horse would be "much more likely to fall" in a race where the jockey tried to force its pace, or the fences were too stiff, but I can't see your position when the race had only just started.

As the rest of your statement is pure supposition, it's no argument at all. If they were "going too fast for him", he wouldn't be able to keep up, would he? He'd be where the majority of the field ends up - either on the deck or out the back. Otherwise, that remark insults the rider: if the field's going "too fast" you're implying that the rider would be too stupid to realise that and ride his own race. With 30 wins so far to his credit, I've no doubt that Peter Toole was not an idiot. But there was no sense at that point that the field was going "too fast for him", so why bring it up?

Would you say that DOONEYS GATE and ORNAIS, the two fatal fallers, shouldn't have been in the race, either, considering their early demise? You're saying, in fact, that the favourite should only be BD by an equal, if he's to be BD at all, which is patently daft.

Why don't you bolster your statement with some statistics where top-race favourites have been regularly clobbered by lowly competitors. You talk about being rational, yet I fail to see any rationalising of your bald comments, other than to backhandedly insult the horse, the trainer, the owner, and the rider.
 
Last edited:
I didn't realise this thread was beyond a debate about something clearly linked. I, like everyone else, wish him all the best and really hope everything goes well.

I think it's fair to assume Peter's family aren't looking in on this thread so lets not be too sensitive about a related discussion. This is similar to people who think facebook lists mean something!

I made the point in a general sense (see my last post). He is clearly much more likely to fall as he will be running at a pace far beyond what he is used to, and hence more likely to make mistakes and fall. He shouldn't have been running in the race - the owner wanted his day out.
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
As the rest of your statement is pure supposition, it's no argument at all. If they were "going too fast for him", he wouldn't be able to keep up, would he? He'd be where the majority of the field ends up - either on the deck or out the back. Otherwise, that remark insults the rider: if the field's going "too fast" you're implying that the rider would be too stupid to realise that and ride his own race. With 30 wins so far to his credit, I've no doubt that Peter Toole was not an idiot. But there was no sense at that point that the field was going "too fast for him", so why bring it up?

Would you say that DOONEYS GATE and ORNAIS, the two fatal fallers, shouldn't have been in the race, either, considering their early demise? You're saying, in fact, that the favourite should only be BD by an equal, if he's to be BD at all, which is patently daft.
Click to expand...

This is excruciating.

Where did I say the following:
- where did I infer Peter O'Toole was an idiot?
- where did I mentioned Ornais or dooney's gate? They were in a handicap, this was a graded race. They were entitled to run in it because their ability via their handicap gave them a theoretically equal chance to all other horses. That they fell was part of racing, and that they died an unfortunate and sad part of jump racing.
 
Then will you please stop implying that Peter and his horse should not have been in the race because of its rating?

If you want the answers to your questions, scroll back up to Diamond Geezer's quote of your words and his response. You refer to the owner as 'ridiculous' as if only he bore responsibility for the horse taking part. It's the trainer who enters it up. It's the jockey who agrees to the ride. Ergo, you have insulted the lot. I'm not saying any more, but I don't appreciate you introducing such comments into this thread. You could at least have started up another topic if you'd wanted to vent about it.
 
'Peter' - didn't realise you were friends. I never implied HE should not have been in the race, I spoke about the horse - again, are you even reading anything I post?
 
krizon said:
Then will you please stop implying that Peter and his horse should not have been in the race because of its rating?

If you want the answers to your questions, scroll back up to Diamond Geezer's quote of your words and his response. You refer to the owner as 'ridiculous' as if only he bore responsibility for the horse taking part. It's the trainer who enters it up. It's the jockey who agrees to the ride. Ergo, you have insulted the lot. I'm not saying any more, but I don't appreciate you introducing such comments into this thread. You could at least have started up another topic if you'd wanted to vent about it.
Click to expand...


Insulting? Peter Toole? Look, I'm not being funny, but have you been drinking or something?
 
Last edited:
I made the point in a general sense (see my last post).
Click to expand...

Did you though?

Hamm said:
There is a lesson to be learned in this for those ridiculous owners who insist on having a runner in these contests that is hopelessly out of their depth
Click to expand...

Hamm said:
That horse should have been nowhere near that race, and I hope Toole continues his recovery and we don't learn the lesson the hardest way..
Click to expand...

These two quotes make it look to me that you were not making a general point, but using this particular case to make your point.

I think that your general point is right, to an extent.

But this race doesn't have anything to do with it. The horse was not caught out by the class of the race; he fell at the first. The horse was not caught out by the pace of the race; he was quite far back at the time.
 
Absolutely Bar.

I suppose we should ban the 80 rated Kinkeel from running in Graded races (as he has done without any problems in the past).

Maybe we should be looking at why these graded races have such a paucity of runners in the first place which tempts the lesser lights into trying to pick up some prize money & have a day out at a big track.
 
A lot of the big races at the Cheltenham Festival have a minimum rating (usually 130)

Don't think it was a factor in this tragic accident.

All the best to Peter Toole for a speedy and full recovery.
 
Better news on the RP site:

PETER TOOLE, the jockey who has been in hospital since a fall at Aintree last weekend, has woken sufficiently from his coma to take commands from his doctors according to trainer Charlie Mann, although he remains on a ventilator.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top