The Listener

G

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
Strange to read tonight that Jacob has lost the ride on the horse after his last fall particularly considering Jacob himself was a replacement previous for Thorton. I rate McNamara really highly, but just a bit of an odd decision to be basing it on his fall at Leopardstown.
 
granger said:
My memory forgets me but when did The Listener move trainer?
Click to expand...

In between last season and this season. Moved to Nick Mitchell who was Robert and Sally Alner's assistant and did much of the training of The Listener ever since Mr Alner has been ill. He's had two runs for Nick Mitchell, I think.
 
Loyalty is a thing of the past.The new trainer must be getting twitchy.Jacob won 3 grade ones on the horse.
 
I'm quite sure it's not Nick Mitchell's decision - it's the owners'.

One of the atr commentators didn't mince his words this afternoon - he was scathing about their lack of appreciation for what the horse has achieved to date. First they jock off Andrew Thorton who'd done all the work (inc the schooling) on the horse - NOT the Alners' decision. Then they take the horse away from the Alners, shortly after Robert becoming paralysed, which in the circumstances was a pretty awful thing to do since he was clearly going to struggle anyway to keep owners; now this. It sucks. Call me emotional, or sentimental - I don't think they deserve the horse.

And yes, Mitchell hasn't had a winner yet and I'm sure he is getting very twitchy.
 
Last edited:
I think it's an absolute joke. I agree with Heads in what she says. Despite not rating Andrew Thornton as a jockey, I don't believe he was fairly treated, nor where the Alners, and now Jacob is on the end of the boot. 'Tis hardly Jacob's fault that the horse fell, he's fallen three other times in his career and often makes mistakes for feck's sake. The owner is lucky enough to have a horse like this, and is in the position to have the same jockey ride him time after time, a position many owners could only dream of. Sounds like a bit of a goon if you ask me.
 
When things start going wrong, under pressure trainers and owners like to blame the jockey rather than taking a look in the mirror.

I'm guilty of taking jocks of my horses for little or no real reason rather than just being a bit p'eed off. It happens in racing and I'm sure Jacob will do fine. He won't be the first jockey to lose a regular ride and he sure as hell won't be the last.
 
Well, shoot the owner for doing what he thinks is best for the horse. He pays the bills, he has a right to decide who trains it and who rides it. He doesn't even have to give a reason to anyone, I think it's a bit rich that so many people are so judgemental on this, especially when no-one passing judgement knows all the ins and outs of what happened, so any assumptions amount to no more than guesswork.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Well, shoot the owner for doing what he thinks is best for the horse. He pays the bills, he has a right to decide who trains it and who rides it. He doesn't even have to give a reason to anyone, I think it's a bit rich that so many people are so judgemental on this, especially when no-one passing judgement knows all the ins and outs of what happened, so any assumptions amount to no more than guesswork.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone is denying that the owner has the right to put on or take off whoever he wants. But as you have freely went around ripping Sam Thomas to shreds on numerous occasions, I think it is only fair that you let one or two of us point out that Jacob has done very little wrong on the horse and hence question why he is actually jocked off.
 
Hang on, I criticise Sam Thomas according to my opinion of him - not by gossiping and guessing about what an owner thinks and why he may have taken Jacob off the horse, whilst passing judgement on the situation whilst not knowing what the full story is. Nor by not acknowledging that since the owner pays all the bills, it's completely up to them who trains/rides it and it's no-one elses business what they do or why they do it!
 
Shadow Leader said:
Hang on, I criticise Sam Thomas according to my opinion of him - not by gossiping and guessing about what an owner thinks and why he may have taken Jacob off the horse, whilst passing judgement on the situation whilst not knowing what the full story is. Nor by not acknowledging that since the owner pays all the bills, it's completely up to them who trains/rides it and it's no-one elses business what they do or why they do it!
Click to expand...

And all that is perfectly fine. No one is saying the owner does not have the right to take anyone off the horse. But on the evidence of what we have seen on the track (which include 3 Grade 1 victories) it does seem a tad harsh but coming from these owners I suppose it is not that surprising given their past record. Something could well have happened off the track to make the decision which is fair enough - but most of the comments on here are based on what the jockey has done on the racecourse.

Horse racing is a sport to me, and I can comment on absolutely anything I want to much in the same way a football fan can comment on a club's owner hiring a new manager, buying a new player etc. Comes with the territory of taking part in a public sport. Owners can of course do what they want but it does not mean we have to stop commenting on it.
 
I think Jacob has given the horse several poor rides.

A day or two prior to the Leopardstown race I had even said to a couple of people 'its about time he was taken off The Listener, how many more poor rides does he have to give the horse'

He rushed the horse to take on Neptune Collonges and put the horse on the floor. Its not the first time he has either fallen off it, or produced race-losing blunders from the horse. On other occasions he has been tactically lacking.

I don't really see the big deal that he is taken off it. Its good news.

As for the owner, he doesn't have to justify who trains his horse to onlookers. It's not a charity. Why do people get all riled up when owners move horses? Its as if once you have chosen a trainer or rider you MUST stick with your first choices or you are an arse.
 
uncle goober said:
I think Jacob has given the horse several poor rides.

A day or two prior to the Leopardstown race I had even said to a couple of people 'its about time he was taken off The Listener, how many more poor rides does he have to give the horse'

He rushed the horse to take on Neptune Collonges and put the horse on the floor. Its not the first time he has either fallen off it, or produced race-losing blunders from the horse. On other occasions he has been tactically lacking.

I don't really see the big deal that he is taken off it. Its good news.

As for the owner, he doesn't have to justify who trains his horse to onlookers. It's not a charity. Why do people get all riled up when owners move horses? Its as if once you have chosen a trainer or rider you MUST stick with your first choices or you are an arse.
Click to expand...

No one is asking the owner to justify why he took the jockey off...we are just discussing it here.

Would we be wrong/not allowed to discuss if McManus took McCoy off Binocular in the Champion? Of course not and this is no different.

But you probably have some fair points in your post regarding some of his rides.
 
no i'm not suggesting we shouldnt talk about it just that some people get riled up about it. Like selling horses, people get all upset when horses are sold on " How could they " etc etc and its the same with moving horses to other yards, from some people. Not saying it shouldnt be talked about, otherwise we would only have all weather meetings and abandonments to talk about!
 
IIRC the horse was always going to move with Nick when he started up on his own - and Nick stayed on longer at the Alners to help them out after the car accident. He neither left them in the lurch (quite the opposite!!) nor "stole" the horse from them (as a lot of people were saying at the time).

Only problem I have with people selling horses is when they then follow up by saying the horse shouldnt be racing after....
 
I agree trudj. So much uninformed guff was talked about this at the time and Claude Duval came out with more of it on ATR yesterday, although he might be excused on the grounds of senility. Far from "switching" trainers, The Listener's owner simply wanted the guy that had in effect been training him in previous seasons, and who knew the horse best, to continue training him; entirely logical, surely.

For most owners of jumpers a good horse comes along very rarely, perhaps only once. So how can an owner who has probably waited decades for a horse of this ability to come along be criticised for seeking to do what is best for the horse?
 
That was my limited understanding too Trudi. Mitchell was always goign to strike out on his own and take his chance etc Is Headstrong really suggesting he should have abandoned all personal aspirations and ambitions because Robert Alner's involved in a serious car crash.

I'm sure also that he delayed his decision too in order to help the Alner's through their darker moments? Mitchell had been doing just about all the work with the horse anyway, and was a de facto trainer which the owners recognised. They gave the young man a chance in recognition of the fact that he was he who was preparing the horse and putting the work in and not the Alners.

Now it might vey well be that he fails as a trainer, plenty have before him, and plenty will again, but I don't see that he's really been given a fair hearing in this one, with plenty of people seeking to paint him as a conspiratorial opportunist
 
I'm well aware that NM postponed his setting up on his own to help the Alners, in fact I posted that up at the time iirc - and I've nothing but respect for him and the way he has conducted himself. As I said at the time, I think it would have been better all round (ie for staff, horses and owners) if the Alners had just given the licence to him and asked him to stay, after the accident.

There is nothing in my post above which is any way critical of Mitchell, if you read it properly, Warbler.
He's in a very difficult position, having such a high profile horse in the yard in his first season.

My remarks do imply some criticism of the owners, as I do feel they have been quite disloyal to people doing their best for the horse, and who have had a lot of success with it - however within their rights they are. The horse is prone to mistakes - Denman or Best Mate he ain't - and imo the owners can't seem to take that on board.

I do respect UG's opinion on riding however and I'd have to watch the races again to comment further, as the points he makes deserve attention
 
Last edited:
As previously said in this thread, in most cases loyalty has gone out of the window in the racing game.
 
For the record, I believe Andrew Thornton also deserved to lose the ride on The Listener, especially after the shocking ride he'd given the horse in the RSA; it's one I didn't really notice at the time, and of course he tipped up eventually, but Thornton was at pains to give the horse no chance of winning, as he does more and more these days, probably because he is losing his nerve rather than deliberately stopping them, but he isn't close to the jockey he was six or seven years ago. Daryl Jacob has been poor all season btw. Loyalty works both ways and when jockeys start riding to their own agendas then owners aren't being respected and need to act more than they do.
 
Fair enough! I haven't got time to watch the races again right now but AT is certainly riding so well these days as he did a few years back; though I always used to like his old-fashioned long-stirruped style for staying chasers


PS On the face of it though the whole thing just seemed a bit "Flagship Uberalles" if you get my drift
 
Back
Top