The Young Master

Do trainers always go through the fixture list and decide which races to target? I know it's their ultimate resonsibility but don't they have office staff that sort out race entries etc. I feel really sad about the whole of this affair, as the horse ran his heart out and was such a convincing winner.
 
So...is TYM any good? I didn't see the race, but from what I gather he won well. Only a 5-year-old, and a sizeable hike in the ratings. Worth puting into TTF lists? And where is he allowed to run next if he loses this race?
 
If you go onto Jockey Club racing videos you can see the race.WINCANTON
12:20 EBF Stallions 'National Hunt' Novices' Hurdle (Qualifier)

12:55 Jockey Club Venues Handicap Chase

13:30 Bathwick Tyres Rising Stars Novices' Chase (Grade 2)

14:05 Bathwick Tyres Mares' Handicap Hurdle

14:40 Badger Ales Trophy (Listed Handicap Chase)

15:15 StanJames.com Elite Hurdle (Grade 2 Limited Handicap)[sorry, can't sort the link out]


















15:50 Jockey Club Catering Intermediate
 
Last edited:
moehat said:
Do trainers always go through the fixture list and decide which races to target? I know it's their ultimate resonsibility but don't they have office staff that sort out race entries etc. I feel really sad about the whole of this affair, as the horse ran his heart out and was such a convincing winner.
Click to expand...

There may be different individuals who do the potential race planning in different yards, but the person with the name on the licence is considered (in the eyes of the BHA) to have ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in their name, same as with doping offences.
 
The race conditions included this statement:
PLEASE NOTE: A novice horse shall only be qualified to run in this race if it has run a minimum of three times in steeplechase races in Great Britain, Ireland or France in accordance with Rule (F) 42.5

This is not an obscure rule or even one that is seldom used. It is astonishing that not only was the trainer apparently unaware of it but that he also failed to read the (very clear) race conditions.

The trainer was clearly at fault. It is a pity that the BHA/Weatherby's didn't pick up on this but they have a secondary responsibility.

As regards the Handicap rating it really does 'rub salt into the wound' but it is the handicapper's job to rate the horse according to all available evidence which, unfortunately for connections, includes Saturday's very impressive performance.

The owner threatening legal action is frankly embarrassing - there is no basis.
 
Only £5million? Not bad for Weatherbys and at least they are not employing Iain Duncan Smiths computer people (£40million plus written off). But the system was clunky and useless when I worked for the BHB 12 years ago!

I remember it cost loads of money to find an extra slot to declare sheepskin cheek pieces..... ;)
 
Fizzbw said:
Only £5million? Not bad for Weatherbys and at least they are not employing Iain Duncan Smiths computer people (£40million plus written off). But the system was clunky and useless when I worked for the BHB 12 years ago!

I remember it cost loads of money to find an extra slot to declare sheepskin cheek pieces..... ;)
Click to expand...

£5million and counting...it's not finished yet ;)
 
Len Madeiros said:
He looked very good. Great ride from BG - timed the winning run perfectly. Put a very competitive handicap to bed very quickly.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above......but it was a desperate renewal, imo, and I'll exercise some caution if he looks like being too highly-tried.
 
Will be interesting to see where they go next. I would be looking at something like the Racing Post Chase or whatever it's called now.
 
So the horse is raised 14 lb for a run he was not eligible to have.
Does this run qualify now as a third run for future Class 1 handicaps ?
If not why the increased rating ?
I remember Excellenza being disqualified after winning Irish Cesarewitch by 6L for not running in Blinkers (that were declared)
I cannot remember what the handicapper did though.
 
Cruella said:
They've spent £5m-plus on the new racing admin computer system to date.
Click to expand...

The Irish Government spent hundreds of millions on e voting machines that had inaccuracies built in to allow for the random nature of PR but with no paper trail.
The most important part of programming is the programmer knowing the rules and variations of what he is programming.
 
The BHA system is possibly the worst designed website and data base I've ever come across. It's like something from the stone ages. (have a look at it, racingadmin.co.uk if you want a laugh) and its quite possible it didn't flag the entry as it rarely does.
 
edgt said:
So the horse is raised 14 lb for a run he was not eligible to have.
Does this run qualify now as a third run for future Class 1 handicaps ?
If not why the increased rating ?
I remember Excellenza being disqualified after winning Irish Cesarewitch by 6L for not running in Blinkers (that were declared)
I cannot remember what the handicapper did though.
Click to expand...

I think this is something that needs to be looked at. I don't think the handicapper takes any notice of those mickey-mouse AW NH flat races we get during spells of bad weather. If TYM is disqualified because he shouldn't have been there in the first place, I'm not sure it is right to then hike his rating based on what was in effect a public gallop.

On the other hand, I'm coming round to the idea that the trainer is guilty of incompetence or negligence and deserves some kind of sanction but I'm not sure punishing the horse itself (by means of a hike in the ratings) or the owner (apart from the prize money being taken away) is justifiable.

The Irish Ces is an interesting possible precedent, edgt.
 
The handicapper can't ignore the run - it would make a mockery of his next outing.

Horse and Owner have been penalised due to an error on the trainer's part. Is it not that straightforward??
 
I suppose it's as straightforward as you want it to be.

I just think if the horse shouldn't have been in the race then there has to be a case for ignoring the run altogether. It's a bit like a remark made in the courtroom which the opposing lawyer objects to, the objection is upheld and the judge orders the remark to be stricken from the record. The jury cannot take the remark into account in arriving at its verdict. is that the equivalent to the handicapper completely ignoring the run?

Yes, it would mean the world and his dog would know all about the horse next time out but at least anything that took him on would know what they were up against. A bit like anything taking on Frankel.

I'd be very interested to hear our own learned friend Ardross's take on the matter.
 
Last edited:
When I was part owner of one or two. The trainer emphasised that, no matter how good or otherwise our horses turned out to be, HE was responsible for the entries as stated in his training license and in the protection of the horse.

I do not have any sympathy for the trainer, horse or owner. In my view, in their hubris, they have brought our unique national hunt racing sport into disrepute either by ignorance or intent (smacks of too much of a coincidence to have entered TYP in the 'chasing' stakes at Kempton) ans so they should accept a pretty substantial penalty.

MR2
 
How many class 1 handicappers has Neil Mulholland trained ?
From his Racing Post comment Sat last he knew well the horse had only 2 chases.
Did he realise the implications ?
When a trainer of my acquaintance ran one in Fred Winter a few years back he was informed the horse needed 3 runs to enter so "rushed " a third race into him to qualify for a rating to race him. He thought at the time it was an anti Irish thing as the same rule did not seem to appear in Ireland.
Was anyone here aware of the situation before the race ?
 
Desert Orchid said:
You're on the tease again, trudij :)

Didn't he say any more than that? Was that in this thread?
Click to expand...

Not one bit, yes it was on here and no, that's all he said.

For what my 2ps worth, I agree with him - it's primarily the fault of the yard. Yes someone should have picked up on it at point of entry or at declaration time, but the fact remains that he shouldn't have been declared !
 
Grasshopper said:
The handicapper can't ignore the run - it would make a mockery of his next outing.

Horse and Owner have been penalised due to an error on the trainer's part. Is it not that straightforward??
Click to expand...



I agree with this but what is the reasoning for the rule in the first place? Why is it okay to run in a G3 handicap but not a G2 or G1 on your third run?

Kauto Star ran in the Haldon Gold Cup on his 3rd run but of course wasn't a novice, he wasn't any more experienced or had anymore form for the handicapper to go off though.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for bumping the thread for a digression but I've not really been here and since I was responded to, it's only polite I respond in kind.

marble said:
As fair as I'm concerned, I'm not banging down the BHA or Weatherby's door asking to be paid out.
I'd view it more as curiosity by those who backed the second than any 'rank opportunism'.
The principle that is at play and how they deal with it is the most interesting thing.
I've taken my pay out and won't be going back in any event regardless.
I respect what Emma Lavelle said, I respect the point that you can't change the pay out after the race, but I still reserve the right to ask whether there'll be some turn around in the current status quo on pay-out (mainly for curiosity's sake!).
I don't think that is opportunistic, hypocritical or unethical (for me personally) in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Hi marble. I think overall, you're correct and due to the time my post was written, some of the context was from a blurry philosophical standpoint.

Personally, over time I have psychologically conditioned myself to accept defeats, draw a line and move on leaving the past where it belongs. Staunchly so be it in matters of love, gambling or arguments with bouncers in situations where I was clearly in the right. Furthermore, I think my position on the belated payouts got muddled with my righteous stance on compensation culture. Once upon a time I worked in a solicitors and last week, my rant de jeur was against those pillocks who were going to be claiming compensation due to delayed flights which angered me terrifically because I fly fairly frequently to the Balkans and now the price of my ticket will go up because a bunch of conniving shits who paid £40 for a flight ticket feel entitled to ten times that amount for suffering that most first world of problems - being stuck at an airport a little longer than one expected. There are too many children in the world dying of starvation for me to feel sorry for myself just because at absolute worst, I had to take a taxi home instead of a slightly cheaper train. But in retrospect, I accept that they are two different things. I suppose I was also pretty miffed because The Young Master winning was a wonderful story...

For what it's worth, I still think it's opportunistic but that in itself, in this context, isn't a bad thing and it was obnoxious of me to describe it as rank. But it wouldn't be unethical (although ethics are strictly subjective - even when there's a consensus) and whilst all humans are hypocrites at one level or another, I don't think that applies in this matter.
 
Back
Top