Ralph Beckett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hamm

Hamm

At the Start
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
12,548
Location
London
Beckett silence riles punters

Considering the angry finger-pointing to which Jim Bolger has been subjected over the last two seasons, Ralph Beckett has got off very lightly. Whereas the Irishman has been taken to task by the media on several occasions when he wasn't immediately forthcoming over injury news or running plans, the Hampshire trainer is flavour of the month, despite refusing to explain the summer setback suffered by Look Here, second-favourite for Saturday's St Leger.
We haven't seen the filly since she hosed up in the Oaks three months ago. Now, punters are supposed to weigh up the final Classic without knowing the reason for that lengthy absence.
In mid-August, Beckett issued a terse statement in which he said Look Here had "suffered a minor problem" that would prevent her from running in the Yorkshire Oaks and made her doubtful for the St Leger. Now, he claims she has made a complete recovery, yet he refuses to elaborate on the problem.
"I said at the time I wasn't going to say what it was and I'm not going to go back on that now," he said yesterday. "What I can tell you is that she is fit and very well." Asked if the problem might affect her in Saturday's race, he said: "I think that's very unlikely."
Beckett, who says he made a joint decision with the owner to withhold details of the problem, concedes that his behaviour sets a deeply unfortunate precedent, from a punter's perspective. But he will not even offer a reason for it, though he denies it has anything to do with Look Here's value as a broodmare, or the potential value of her progeny.
"We have our reasons and I can't say any more," was his parting shot. The episode underlines how few trainers feel they owe any duty of disclosure to those that support the sport.


----------------------------------------

In my opinion, this is much worse than whatever Bolger did, and deserves retribution of some kind from the authorities.

How a trainer can be so dismissive of the betting public is quite disgraceful, and should pre-empt a new regulation of some sort. He is blatantly hiding something which anyone backing a horse in the Leger would need to factor in before considering her or others in the Leger.

Will there be a similar stream of abuse hurled at Ralph if Look Here (i think she should be favourite) wins the Leger?

Ps - could or would this happen in the far east, the US or Australia?
 
Last edited:
Pretty shocking but it's not as bad as Bolger, New Approach was much more of a "hotpot" for the Derby and you didn't know whether he was participating from one hour to the next. At least we've known she's running for a few weeks and it's not been in doubt but I agree, he should declare her problem as it just breeds suspicion of the sport and him in particular.
 
Not necessarily - Look Here's SP will in all likelihood be shorter than New Approach's.

It says a lot about racing here that he can get away with things like this.

I think he needs to take a step back and realise that without the betting public he wouldn't have the job he has.
 
Andrew Hurley said:
Not necessarily - Look Here's SP will in all likelihood be shorter than New Approach's.

It says a lot about racing here that he can get away with things like this.

I think he needs to take a step back and realise that without the betting public he wouldn't have the job he has.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of that but The Leger is a much weaker and less of a betting race so the 2 horse's SPs are irrelevant.
 
Bizarre to say the least the way he is going around it. Making something up would be far easier!
 
The owner/breeder Julian Richmond-Watson is the Senior Steward of the Jockey Club which makes the whole thing more bizarre - but the instruction clearly came from the owner - who will also be breeding form her - and RB has to 'share the can carrying' so to speak. He has said the silence ont he matter was a 'joint decision', but I wonder if that is truly the case.

The only think I know is that she tends to strike into herself galloping; but I can't see how that could affect her paddock value - or rather that of her progeny, as she is going to her home paddocks, not being sold on. It's all most odd as RB is usually very open about his horses, and very media friendly. I don't think it's appropriate to blame him in this instance
 
Didn't something like this happen last year with a completely different horse and trainer?

Edit: just remembered, think it was Hourigan and Beef or Salmon when he didn't run at Leopardstown a couple of years back after the Down Royal race was abandoned due to a bomb scare. He refused to go into detail about why the horse hadn't run because it was embarrassing or some such.
 
HS,

If he chooses to be part of this, then it is wholly appropriate to blame him.

Regarding the filly going to the owner's paddocks, that will not prevent him selling her progeny?
 
They did say at the time that the hold-up was due to ''an incident on the gallops" and have said since it was very minor. I assumed it was an over-reach such as she's prone to, but maybe it was something less 'normal'. eg She ran into the 4-track? or was spooked by a loose dog, rider came off etc?

The tight lips can only be to save someone's face I guess... The main thing is he has stated she is completely over it, whatever it was, and if he says so I believe him. He's a very straight guy. He was very up front and immediate with the news in the first place, and has been with progress - do we really need to know the precise reason?
 
She ran into the 4-track? or was spooked by a loose dog, rider came off etc?
Click to expand...

Got to be something like that, that wouldn't necessarily reflect well on the operation. But by not saying, people will speculate...
 
Andrew Hurley said:
HS,

If he chooses to be part of this, then it is wholly appropriate to blame him.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous Andrew - if an OWNER tells a trainer not to talk about something - anything - then he can't, whatever it is or whatever his reasons. You seem to have a very odd perception of the relationship between owner and trainer. The horse is the property of the owner who pays the trainer to do his bidding

My understanding is that all JRW's are bred to race for him and not to be sold, certainly the fillies; though he may sell the colts. But I'm pretty sure he'd race them too for himself, first, as his ambition has always been to breed to win the Derby and the Oaks
 
But by not saying, people will speculate...
Click to expand...

... people will make a point of finding out. It will be known by Saturday morning. As Galileo said he should have just made something up that would have equated to the setback.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Got to be something like that, that wouldn't necessarily reflect well on the operation. But by not saying, people will speculate...
Click to expand...

I've been to the yard very recently, and it's utterly immaculate, very well run and organised [both yards, they are separated by half a mile of lane and the horses from the lower yard are ridden up to the upper yards to go to the gallops].

The gallops are endless - more extensive than Lambourn's and beautifully cushioned - full time gallop staff etc. There's a big staff, who all seem very cheery and happy. It's very well run - but freak accidents can and do happen in the best run yards... I expect we have all heard stories!
 
Whatever the problem is, I'm sure it's not that!
If 'connections' wanted to back her they'd have done it immediately after the Oaks - if not before LOL
 
HS,

A trainer's obligation to the owner extends to training a horse, looking after it, and entering it in appropriate races.

An owner has no right to tell a trainer what he can and can't say to the public.
 
Well, then that's ridiculous.

I wonder would this scenario be different if the owner didn't occupy the position he does?
 
I actually find your viewpoint genuinely ridiculous.If I pay someone to do a job and advise them that my business is confidential,I expect them to keep their trap shut.
 
Beckett's reluctance to elaborate is certainly strange, and unless she's been accidentally genetically modified, I can't see that there can be any impact on sales revenue from her offspring should she be sound enough to run well at the weekend.

However, Beckett isn't being dishonest and that is arguably not the case with Bolger. If he had maintained that Look Here had no problems and was always on course for the Leger only to withdraw her on the day then punters would have had a raw deal and that tends to be the case with most trainers. The fact is that he has been open enough to reveal that there had been a setback and that he now believes her to have recovered fully. As long as that is true then punters are being treated fairly enough. Ideally we would know the full details but it's more important to be given no information than be fed false information as in the Bolger case and many similar scenarios over the years.
 
He's doing more damage by being so reticent on the matter - it makes it a big thing now there is the stark refusal to disclose what was the problem. As Gal said, I've no doubt someone will find out anyway and it will be disclosed in due course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top