Trainer bias affecting judgement

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
I've witnessed this through the years on forums. I've seen it with Pipe..Nichols...and on a smaller scale with Hen Knight's training of Best Mate.

Once a trainer gains prominence there are a section of punters that will always view his/her horses in a negative light no matter what the performance.

As someone who treats horse performance as just that..i wonder why this happens...why is there an allegiance to trainers by punters?

Yesterdays win by Faugheen is a classic example..if you swapped Faugheen for Peace & CO in yesterdays race..would the henderson fan club be pulling the form down? I think exactly the opposite would happen...the rose tinted spectacles would be on.

On a forum like ours we all have opinions about horses..but is opinion actually being formed about the trainer rather than the horse on occasions.

Personally i don't care about who trains them if they put in good performabces..i just love watching very good horses..what is it that makes some punters not be able to enjoy a performance unless its from a favoured trainer?..or..always diss a non favourite trainers horses.

Serious question..because many discussions on here are being based on trainer bias..rather than track performance imo.
 
Excellent idea for a discussion, EC1.

Hope it doesn't descend into a slagfest :)

I think there will always be an element of bias one way or another. It's not unlike trying to discuss football. Fans of certain teams or nations will big up or diss down other teams.

We often read pundits expressing the opinion that "if X trained this it would be half the price". I've done it myself often enough.

I think there's a difference between just liking a trainer and reading his/her MO accurately. Some are better than others at it.
 
there is no reason for a slagfest..i read this forum a lot as most of you do..over a period of time its easy to see the bias.

I just don't understand it...i watch the performace..attempt to measure it..be impressed..or not.. just based on the performance...who trains it has no bearing on my opinion of said horse.

What bulids the allegiance?..what builds the non allegiance?..is it really using best judgement about the actual horse..does that trainer allegiance affect how people bet?

loads of things to discuss...like i said..its alien to me having a trainer allegiance..so i don't understand it at all.
 
Last edited:
Some, including me, find it difficult to be as objective as we should be, EC.

I would find it very difficult to back a horse ridden/trained by Ann Stokell!
 
EC1 said:
there is no reason for a slagfest...
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also know how things can go on some forums.

Most of the time this one is the best but it isn't immune from personal disrespect creeping into discussions.

I have trainers I like on my side and trainers I prefer to oppose but I try to take each race/case on its own merits.

I always think twice before backing anything ridden by Richard Johnson - which people will find hard to believe - but it wouldn't stop me going in double-strength on a bet if I thought the horse's chances were good enough (eg Royal Regatta on Saturday).

I also tend to take current trainer form into account. I realised a while back that Rebecca Curtis's horses were doing nothing so started avoiding her runners even if hey were top rated.

Etc, etc.
 
Well I don't like the way Tanlic hates/disses all the Nicky Henderson horses.........especially poor Sprinter Sacre!!
 
Last edited:
i don't mean backing or avoiding backing a trainer DO...we all are careful with certain stables....i mean taking a negative view of a good performance ..just due to who trains it..or taking a positive view of a bad performance..just based on who trains it

its that allegiance or non allegiance affecting how a punter views a performance..that i don't understand..I'd say a large % of punters have these allegiances/dislikes and they are part of how they assess a horse..thats what i'm asking.
 
Last edited:
Excellent thread and It is very evident at times, probably guilty of it myself to an extent but hopefully a low %

Most certainly was a negativity to PFN at times on here when he was successful, in reality he was good for the sport, ran his horses regularly and campaigned them aggressively and was bullish/gruff in his comments
 
EC1 said:
i don't mean backing or avoiding backing a trainer DO...we all are careful with certain stables....i mean taking a negative view of a good performance ..just due to who trains it..or taking a positive view of a bad performance..just based on who trains it

its that allegiance or non allegiance affecting how a punter views a performance..that i don't understand..I'd say a large % of punters have these allegiances/dislikes and they are part of how they assess a horse..thats what i'm asking.
Click to expand...

OK.

I have to rush out just now - golf lesson! - but will mull this over in the meantime. I'm not sure there is that much bias in that respect.
 
thats very honest Granger..good one

personality has to be an aspect of this....like with Nichols..he is like you say gruff..you can get the impression he is an arsey type...some punters would take against the personality..and then over time not be that interested in him winning...take a negative view of performances Whereas with a likeable personality punters would be more generous when viewing that trainers horses.

When Pipey were winning everything..it seemed to me that he had a hardcore of people who thought he was great..but many disliked his methods and so..i assume would take a negative of his horses when they won

Mullins now is so dominant..that many don't like his success..its not his personality though imo..he always comes across as sound and a decent bloke..well to me he does.
 
Last edited:
Cue Card is a horse that divides opinion from what I've seen.
When he loses he should be trained by someone else and when he wins its despite of the trainer.
 
Not guilty at all. I do feel bias on occasion but it's more against a horse/division than the trainer.

I loved Denman but had no time for Big Buck's. He was a failed chaser who was eulogised out of all proportion to how good he was.

I love Vautour and have huge huge regard for Don Poli and Douvan but Faugheen just leaves me a bit cold. And that's not the horse really it's the jizzing associated with his every win.
 
granger said:
Excellent thread and It is very evident at times, probably guilty of it myself to an extent but hopefully a low %

Most certainly was a negativity to PFN at times on here when he was successful, in reality he was good for the sport, ran his horses regularly and campaigned them aggressively and was bullish/gruff in his comments
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not a fan of PFN and that's probably made me overlook a fair amount of his horses - that's despite Kauto being my favourite horse of all time.
 
I think we're looking at this back-to-front.

In my view, Trainer bias is in effect before the race, rather than after. If you're not keen on a particular trainer, you will perhaps write his/her horse out of calculations a little more readily/easily, than you would with someone's else's horse.

If the horse is beaten, then you were right and the trainer is useless........and if it wins the trainer is a lucky/cheating wanker (take your pick), and the dislike intensifies. Either way, it becomes self-fulfilling, and you have to be incredibly disciplined to not let it affect your judgement in future races.

To be honest, I don't see any evidence of a clearly good performance being talked-down after the fact, simply because the trainer is on someones 'bad' list.......mainly because, in Forum-world, you will quickly get your vision-corrected, if you promote such a flimsy argument.
 
Me? Never :lol: If Peace and CO had beaten anything by 15 lengths I would be jumping for joy because he's trained by Nicky to a certain degree but really because I really like the horse. I think he oozes class but I do try to look at everything when the dust settles. I joke about being biased but I am not about trainers but I am about certain horses.

My take on the Fauheen Saga is call it as you see it

I do not believe for 1 second that Arctic Fire ran his best race yesterday.

I never ever regarded Nichols Canyon as a serious anything let alone a serious Champion Hurdle horse.
His win over Faugheen I have seen a thousand times over the last 40 years.

Horses first time out trainers sending them out half cooked. The form never ever works out and the victor on the day fades into obscurity.

It's like would the real Arctic Fire stand up..........now is the real Arctic Fire the one who was easily beaten by Hurricane Fly twice or is the real Arctic Fire the one who handed Hurricane Fly his ass when finishing 2nd in the Champion Hurdle.

Now I ask... is the real Arctic Fire the one who ran Faugheen to 1 1/2 lengths in that Champion Hurdle or is he the one who just got absolutely hammered by 15 lengths by the same horse.

I don't know about anyone else but I see a pattern emerging here and it would come as no surprise to me if AF shook Faugheen up again but he is not as good as people think.

It seems to me he is being trained to be 100% at Cheltenham and most likely was not spot on the other day.
 
Last edited:
I think the real issue Digger is if someone bashes a certain trainer lets say PFN in this example whilst at the same time waxing lyrical about every Henderson action. It's like the football fan mentality, they are different to me, so I must dislike.

When rational thinking is blinded by tunnel vision, that is when bias dominates your thoughts and a pinch of salt has to be taken with an opinion

Henderson and Nicholls were great rivals - it shouldn't mean that racing fans take a rigid position on or against the other as a result
 
I don't have a bias against trainers, but definitely do against horses; especially the ones that have let me down in the past but have suddenly reinvented themselves, buy a new outfit, get a wind op and start winning bloody good races against my now-favoured horses!

I always look at trainer form, too. Really useful info for the festivals, I find.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day, I suppose I used to have a big negative for Martin Pipe.

Being an honest type of bloke (me, not him) I'd have to own up to a strong distrust of his operation. In short, I was convinced he was blood-doping. I could never be sure whether his horses would run to form.

I used to note some of them recording monster time ratings off wide-margin wins but they'd be gubbed out of sight next time only to return to very impressive form a run or two down the line. But that was all before the general betting public were aware of 'the bounce'. maybe that's all that was happening back then.

Seeing MCP behind the scenes on TV, I think the guy must be brilliant for owners. He always makes sure winning connections get photographed with the horse & jockey etc.
 
Back
Top