Princess Flame

I'm sure there was a Scandinavian? girl (maybe German!) who was done for not riding out at Wolves who admitted she was told to jump off at the back and stay there. I keep wanting to think it was trained by Jack Berry....
 
Fron the RP in 2004:

"Even he, however, couldn't hold a candle to the magnificent German apprentice Katharina Neubecker, who in January 2002 won both the Chancellor's Award for Disarming Honesty and the annual Glenn Hoddle "On Reflection I Really Wish I Hadn't Said That" Trophy for her excuse for an unusually passive ride on Sir Ivanhoe at Neuss.
The candid Neubecker revealed that her instructions from trainer Andreas Bolte were to race in last place and stay there, so that Sir Ivanhoe would receive a low handicap rating."
 
Getting back to the matter in hand ~ there are two incorrect assumptions being made. Firstly on behalf of Kylie Manser and her "previous"; she did indeed pick up a 10 day ban earlier in the season for making insufficient effort but that was quashed on appeal so shouldn't count against her. Secondly, it is assumed that the Stewards exonerated Manser and Powell by merely noting their explanations at Chepstow; while it is significant that neither was banned or fined, it is also significant that their explanations were not accepted and a line drawn under the matter. For the sake of clarification, I believe that the important thing is the process of justice, not deciding to take sides for party political reasons. Kylie Manser certainly didn't cover herself in glory at Chepstow but there are a number of possible explanations for both that performance and the one at Newbury. The stewards of the BHA are tasked with finding out whether those reasons are innocent or contrived. I haven't spotted anyone trying to crucify Brendan Powell or label him "a crook" but he needs to be held accountable, as do all trainers, even (gasp!) Sir Michael Stoute.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jun 25 2008, 01:39 AM
Oh, alright, smartarse!!! I was sure it happened at Wolverhampton - wishful thinking maybe....
Click to expand...
I believe you were referring to this:

"History was made at Wolverhampton on Saturday night when Swedish rider Jenny Hedlund was referred to Portman Square after she admitted losing her nerve on the Gerard Butler-trained Beauchamp Rose in the middle of a race.
The episode was the first time that the fear factor has been put forward when stewards have questioned a jockey about a ride, and raises a doubt whether Hedlund will be allowed to continue her career in Britain.
She joined Butler's Blewbury stable three weeks ago after having 30 winners in Sweden, and was riding on a Swedish licence. This was her sixth mount since her arrival and the first at Dunstall Park.
Beauchamp Rose, who five days earlier had finished 11th of 16 on her debut at Leicester under Shane Kelly, was beaten 16 lengths into eighth place after being tenderly ridden throughout.
Interviewed by the stewards, Hedlund said her instructions were to jump out, get a position and do her best. She said the filly became fractious in the stalls, would not face the kickback, and tried to fly-jump until entering the home bend.
Hedlund said at this point she became weak and unbalanced and froze in the saddle, having lost her nerve. She said that in the circumstances she was unable to ride the filly to the best of her ability, and added she had felt very nervous riding in her first three races in Britain."
 
Ok, that sounds like the one but I didn't remember her admitting to being scared.

Oh, "fractious in stalls" - I'd love to call a horse that!!!!! (in fairness, it's an in-joke from when I was at VC)
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jun 25 2008, 01:47 AM
.....not even, surely, [gasp!] Sir, M-m-m-ichael Stoute???
Click to expand...
Even the greats are not immune ~ from the previously mentioned BHA site:

"SIR MICHAEL STOUTE / FLORIMUND
Published: Friday 04 Aug 2006
The Disciplinary Panel of the Horseracing Regulatory Authority (HRA), on 4 August 2006, considered an appeal lodged by Sir Michael Stoute, the trainer of FLORIMUND, against the decision of the Windsor Stewards on 24 July to deem him in breach of Rule 155(ii) and to fine him £6500. The Windsor Stewards had also found Mr Stephen Davies, the rider of FLORIMUND, to be in breach of Rule 157 and suspended him for 32 days, and suspended FLORIMUND from running for 40 days.

The Panel heard evidence from Sir Michael Stoute, Mr Stephen Davies and Mr Jimmy Scott, Sir Michael’s travelling head lad and representative. It also viewed video recordings of the race.

At the Windsor enquiry Mr Davies had said that his instructions came directly from Sir Michael. They were to the effect that in an ideal world FLORIMUND should be kept handy, up with the first four or five. Mr Davies also told the Windsor Stewards that in the event that the colt was slowly away (as it had been in its first two runs) Sir Michael told him “obviously you will just have to take it from there.” Mr Scott told the Windsor Stewards that those were the instructions and that he was satisfied that they had been carried out.

It was a noteworthy feature of this case that there was no appeal by the rider, Mr Davies, against the finding by the Windsor Stewards that he was in breach of Rule 157, or against a penalty that indicates that they concluded that this was a case where the colt was deliberately not asked for sufficient effort.

This Panel nevertheless viewed the various video recordings of the race with care, and formed its own view about the ride, as part of the necessary context for its evaluation of Sir Michael’s appeal.

In summary, the ride given by Mr Davies was a disgrace. Even though FLORIMUND was slowly away from the stalls, there was ample opportunity for the colt to be much better positioned when approaching the first part of the right hand bend. Instead he was last, and last by several lengths. After the bend, but without encouragement from Mr Davies, FLORIMUND gradually improved his position in the field up to about the two furlong marker. Mr Davies then made the briefest of efforts to push the colt forward. He then stopped and coasted home, beaten 7¾ lengths into 11th place.

Mr Davies’s explanation for this lack of effort towards the end of the race was that he was “tired”. The Panel does not accept that. He was quite deliberately failing to ask for any effort from a horse that plainly had the ability to improve his position.

In his evidence, Sir Michael described the ride as “very incompetent”. The Panel rejects that characterisation for the reasons given above – this was a case of a deliberate failure to ride the colt on its merits, particularly in the first few furlongs of the race and towards the finish.

It was in these circumstances that the Panel has had to evaluate Sir Michael’s case, made in his evidence for the first time, that Mr Davies had in fact failed to follow his instructions. He said that he had in fact told Mr Davies that, if FLORIMUND broke slowly, he should use his brain and push the colt into as reasonable a position as possible by the right hand bend.

In the light of the way that the video recordings show that FLORIMUND was ridden, the Panel concluded that Sir Michael was in breach of Rule 155 (ii). The instruction recounted by Mr Davies, both to the Windsor Stewards and before this Panel, was on its face completely inadequate. It amounts to nothing more than telling the rider to do what he felt like if the colt broke slowly. Even the slightly amended version of the instruction recounted by Sir Michael is similarly inadequate because it does nothing to explain Mr Davies’ riding towards the end of the race. Sir Michael told the Panel that he accepted Mr Davies’ explanation that he was “tired” at this stage. The Panel did not, and indeed regarded that explanation as ludicrous. So the Panel concluded that Sir Michael had failed to discharge the burden put upon him by Rule 155(iii), which is to prove that he gave instructions that were necessary to ensure that FLORIMUND ran on its merits, particularly as the jockey was having just his third ride of the season and had hardly ridden in public for several years before. He is therefore deemed to be in breach of Rule 155(ii). FLORIMUND was running its third race, and the video recordings show it was being ridden in a manner that appeared designed to achieve a highly advantageous handicap mark.

When considering penalty, the Panel decided that this was, as the Windsor Stewards decided, a bad case that deserved penalties more severe than the ‘entry points’ that are now prescribed. The Panel increased the fine upon Sir Michael to reflect its view that this was a particularly poor case of a non-trier.

The appeal against the finding of a breach of Rule 155(ii) was therefore dismissed, and the penalty varied to a fine of £8500. The deposit is forfeit. FLORIMUND is suspended from running for 40 days from Tuesday 8 August until Saturday 16 September 2006 inclusive.

Although this was not the subject of separate disciplinary proceedings, the Panel records that it was told, surprisingly, by Sir Michael’s experienced travelling head lad, Mr Scott, that he was unaware of the riding instructions given to Mr Davies until he heard them mentioned by Mr Davies during the Windsor enquiry. He later said he learned of them from Mr Davies in the paddock before the race. Indeed he said that he never knows what the riding instructions are, on any occasion when he acts as Sir Michael’s representative. Whatever the truth of this may be, the Panel draws attention to Instruction D5, which requires trainer’s representatives to know of riding instructions, and it is obviously preferable that these are communicated directly by the trainer to his representative."

Apologies for the long post ~ the point being that wooly excuses used to be taken as a matter of course but th BHA has developed a spine, if not sufficient teeth....
 
I know Jenny well who was at Butler's at the time when the "scared" incident came about. I'm not willing to say on here about that night, but she is a cracking rider and rode all the dodgepots in Dubai for Butler, so being scared, umm yeah whatever.

As for Princess Flame, I'm not saying Brendan has tried to pull a fast one, but believe me he should have had a major fine yesterday.

There were a few positive betting moves, and the filly who got away with it last time, won pretty easily. Now I would like to hear the apparent sudden improvement in form.

The horse at Chepstow clocked a performance figure of 57, yet yesterday clocked a 67, improvement of ten marks, (or 20lb if you so wish).

This to me is understandable in a maiden, but not in a horse that has run umpteen times unless to be blunt, it ain't been off.

Now I know there is little a trainer can do when the horse is on track, and I'm not suggesting Brendan has cheated with this filly, but something doesn't ring true.

Kathy in all due respect I would expect you to defend your trainer, and quite right of you doing so, but I'm afraid I fear you may be wrong on this account as "facts" suggest this filly, was not there to do her best at Chepstow but was at Newbury, ironically in a race where even if you won or came nowhere the handicapper can't raise you, because it was an apprentice race, now thats smart race planning if you know you have a very well handicapped horse.

I have nothing against trainers trying to win races by getting horses handicapped, maybe running 2 weeks too short, or by running it over an inadequate trip, but to run a horse in its class, and deliberately make no attempt to win, is purely not allowing the horse run to the best of it's ability and that is exactly what happened at Chepstow. Its now clear to see that Princess Flame proved those who thought she was a non trier that evening were correct. Had this been a Wigham horse, the money wouldn't have dried up (Princess Flame was 12/1 - 13/2 at one point), the difference is in a yard like Brendan's the money was early and simply dried up when there was no more to get on, justifying an SP of 10/1. The fact this horse was backed considerably at one stage yesterday I feel the market monitors at Betfair or in the trade have not done there job by failing to alert a move on a horse like this to the BHA or the course stewards, and if they did, then the BHA or the course stewards have failed to do their job by not taking action.

Now Brendan may be an innocent party in all this, but someone down the line knew last night was the night, and on previous performances you would have struggled to have made a case for her and therefore Mr Powell should be contacted and asked to explain the sudden improvement in form.

I don't and cant think there is any reason for Princess Flame's form to have improved yesterday except, they cheated the system to obtain a handicap mark beneficial to connections in order to land a gamble.

You may say Brendan ain't like that Kathy and I'm not saying he works this way. He is not a trainer I particularly monitor but to me in spite of what you say Kathy something doesn't ring true on this whole affair and the stewards have failed to do their job in my opinion.

Had the mare been in foal prior to her Chepstow run then there is of course reason to expect or accept improvement but two shocking runs since bare question if that is a used factor (PS I don't know if the horse is in foal, just one possible outcome).

Now Kathy this is not a dig at you and I do respect your opinions on alot of things and think your a very sound person, so please don't get upset about my post, but in my opinion, I think Mr Powell and Ms Manser should have been approached to explain the improvement yesterday, so in my opinion I think the stewards have failed to take action appropriately on a matter, they should have.

All i want to know is when a horses reasons are noted, what does that mean exactly, as I always thought it meant if an improvement in that said horse would become apparent in the future for the same connections, they would inquire into its improvement. I obviously thought wrong. Does anyone know the real reason for noting a horses performance ?
 
Chris, you are clearly entitled to your opinion. I am not defending Brendan per se, I am just clarifying that he is not bent, he does not gamble and horses do (even his) improve.

Stewards will do what they see fit and as much as some would love to see Brendan banned/fined/disciplined it doesn't look as if they feel there was anything untoward going on last night.

I am not looking through rose-tinted glasses. I saw the Chepstow race and fully understood why there would have been an enquiry. I then saw Pricess Flame's two subsequent efforts and the fact that everything fell into place for both the horse and the rider last night at Newbury which resulted in a win.

The SP was 10/1 so it certainly doesn't sound as if there was some sort of coup going on and on her bit of past form she should have been there or there abouts. There was also nothing in the write up/race report that would make me feel that whoever wrote the report felt this win was totally unexpected.

I am sure all of you on here that feel the BHA and or the stewards have failed in their duty to the racing public could put your personal opinions in writing to them and perhaps let us all know their response?

It would be nice to see that other trainers are highlighted on this forum for the reason Brendan has, but to me, part of this thread comes across as a bit of a witch hunt and it doesn't take a genuis to work out why that may be.
 
part of this thread comes across as a bit of a witch hunt and it doesn't take a genuis to work out why that may be.
Click to expand...

I'm especially challenged, so why is there a 'witch hunt' for Mr Powell than ? I loved him on Dublin Flyer !
 
Originally posted by chrisbeekracing@Jun 25 2008, 05:49 AM
All i want to know is when a horses reasons are noted, what does that mean exactly, as I always thought it meant if an improvement in that said horse would become apparent in the future for the same connections, they would inquire into its improvement. I obviously thought wrong. Does anyone know the real reason for noting a horses performance ?
Click to expand...
That is supposed to be the reason, Chris. Why they follow it up for smoe and not for others, I have no idea.

Kathy, I know you are going to take this the wrong way and it is not intended as such but trust me, Brendan does enjoy a bet.
 
Let's wait and see what other horse/trainer/jockey combination get as much attention on a dedicated thread and where the jockey and trainer are practically accused of cheating.

In the meantime can you show me any other similar threads, Galileo? Go back on the forum as far as you like.

I will be removing the Talking Horses link from Brendan's website. I am sure you will understand the reasons for this.
 
Suny has called Dermot Weld a cheat.

AOB is constantly accused of non triers.

Prescott is a standing dish. As is Martin.
 
As a point of interest, is it impossible for trainers in the middle of the pecking order to make a sufficient living from training racehorses, and training racehorses alone? I'm sure the top boys are making their stash from training fee's but what about the rest?
 
I think I introduced myself on here by saying that they pretty much are all bandits (which didn't go down too well :D ) I have also drawn attention to what I perceive to be double standards used in monitoring the bigger and smaller trainers and in particular the use of the race course by Mr O'Brien and Mr Weld as a training ground.
 
Do the trainers that like to have a coup only do so because they can actually land one? I'm sure the England national team would never back themselves in a match knowing how crap they are...

And where does the handicap system fit in in all of this? Why is it causing such a delinquent culture? Is it the only viable option?
 
Could one of the mods confirm that there is no sign of malice against Brendan Powell in this thread, but merely a perfectly well balanced discussions about the stewarding/disclipinary process based on what everyone agrees was a poor/injudicious ride at Chepstow (excepting Kathy's interjections, obviously)? I've made an especial attempt to focus on the process ~ particularly pointing out that the stewards don't conveniently drop enquiries in the way that we tend to think they do. I believe that the race last night will be looked at and if the stewards are happy that Mr Powell wasn't up to no good, then he will be exonerated and I'll be more then satisfied with that. I have no desire to see him banned for the sake of it and I certainly have no vendetta against him.

Various posters have tried to distance themselves from suggesting that this was definitely a coup engineered by Brendan Powell (as there are various explanations in which the trainer may or may not be complicit) and that's as it should be. The problem is that Kathy's ego appears to have swelled so much that she sees this, not simply as a veiled attack on her friend Brendan, but almost as if it's actully about her, which it clearly isn't. She would like to think that somehow this is my crusade when the most scathing comments have come from two of the genuine students of form on the forum, Chris Beek and David Johnson. There are many threads like this one on TRF for example debated by similar people without an axe to grind, but Kathy won't have seen these, unfortunately.

It's perfectly acceptable to discuss controversial aspects of racing as long as it doesn't descend into personal abuse and the sort of "everyone knows he's bent" diatribe that such emotive subjects tend to. So far, this discussion has been perfectly even handed insofar as it deals with the Princess Flame issues, and I hope it continues that way.
 
Back
Top