Everyone knows trainers "have it off" all the time, getting good marks for less talented individuals. If the non-trier rule was applied to the letter every 15-20 runner maiden contested in the British Isles would spawn multiple bans.
Part of the art of gambling is to recognise which John Dunlop 2 year old with 2 runs under his belt is going to win 3rd time up or is going to be "ridden considerately" to get a decent mark. Part of the art of training is to maximise the potential return on the owner's investment. I am sure most owners would be unhappy if a trainer allowed their horse to be murdered by the handicapper for getting to close to a potentially decent rival in a low grade maiden, thereby ruining any chance of finding a winnable opportunity for the horse.
Moving onto Princess Flame. Having shown promise in her first two seasons under the NH code, she showed nothing in two quick fire maidens in April. However the second of those races was won by none other than the subsequent runner up in the Epsom Derby. Given that in that event she found herself not too far behind Tartan Bearer with 3 furlongs to go, it is hardly surprising she finished her race 21 lengths adrift of a horse rated 116.
So, come Chepstow there is suddenly a big kerfuffle on here over her "improved" form, with the suggestion that the rider did not make every possible effort to achieve the best possible placing. Given what we now know about Tartan Bearer, was Chepstow that big a surprise?
The debate also focused on the suspicion the filly was "not off" at Chepstow. I have looked at the race again and given the way she fell out of the stalls it would have been fairly strict to suggest the rider should have beaten her up to get even closer at the finish.
I don't think you can take Tartan Bearer's win at Leicester as the same horse that won a Dante and came 2nd in a Derby. He improved significantly and was not fit at Leicester.
secondly it's all well saying trainers have it off and spotting this and that, but its still breaking the rules, which given your reply deems you feel that is acceptable.
Jockey's are asked to ride their mounts to achieve the best possible finishing position, something I feel wasn't done at Chepstow.
I couldn't give a rats arse if Brendan Powell or the owners backed it, what I'm stating is the horse didn't run to its full potential which in my own opinion was because the jockey was not riding the horse to the best of its ability.
If you believe its fair to give horses quiet runs then I'm very surprised and suggest if you ever go on to own horses you don't put that on your application form. There is a difference in horses showing inexperience over trips shorter than ideal than a horse that is tenderly looked after whilst still being hard on the bridle.
It's not for me to say anymore on this subject but if you think the horses run at Chepstow was a try then I'm totally and utterly amazed as the horses despite being hampered was never asked for a serious effort from the saddle.
I like Brendan as a trainer and think he is a good trainer but i do not feel the authorities are strong enough on trainers, jockeys, owners and so on when a horse is tenderly ridden when it maintains a chance of placing or winning or maybe even finishing mid division.
Taking races where a class horse wins and using him as a benchmark for the remainder is also very dangerous when form reading, you can't possibly honestly think Tartan Bearer has run anywhere near his potential at Leicester do you ??
It's really wearing on the rest of us!