Yarmouth

NH trainers did organise a similar boycot in 2003 at Sedgefield, which I well remember because a horse I owned was part of it. Our trainer was not one of the instigators, but we were happy to go along with the action because the point needed to be made. The difference between that and the Yarmouth situation is that the action was not taken against Sedgefield in particular, rather a general protest about the levels of prize money in NH racing at that time.

As to Christine Dunnet being intimiidated, this is claptrap. She agree to go along with the boycot - as did other trainers large and small - then decided it would be preferable to make some easy money. But then we mustn't expect some racing journalists to let the facts get in the way of a story, particularly if it gives 'em a chance to air their political views.

For a balanced take on the Yarmouth situation, Julian Muscat's piece in yesterday's Times is worth a read

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rac...icle3606760.ece

richard
 
I don't see where this article supports your point that Dunnett has been talking claptrap, Richard?

Quite simply, boycotting one race at Yarmouth without widespread consultation with other racing bodies was plain stupid and looks amateurish in the extreme.

The principle is quite right - prize money is far too low in this country and if the problem isn't addressed soon, racecorses will go out of business - or become housing/trading estates.

However, the decision to start boycotting events has to be made by the owners, who are paying for the trainers and stable staff. So a concerted effort between the ROA and NTF is the obvious solution.
 
Originally posted by Songsheet@Mar 25 2008, 02:08 PM


However, the decision to start boycotting events has to be made by the owners, who are paying for the trainers and stable staff. So a concerted effort between the ROA and NTF is the obvious solution.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Songsheet!

Those trainers who admit make they enough money out of their training fee's are probably only paying lip service to the prize money issue. Christine Dunnett has no choice. The publicity generated for this latest "stunt" by certain Newmarket trainers will (hopefully) have done them absolutely no favours in my opinion and just confirms why certain small trainers need to be supported in this. This isn't a hobby for them, but an income to generate money to survive financially. Shame on those trainers that have tried to ridicule Christine Dunnett and I for one think she has done herself immense credit by standing up to trainers that should know better. She is nobodies fool and they have clearly underestimated her resiliance. She will fight her corner.

There are ways to get people talking about the highly emotive prize money issue and these "big brother" trainers trying to use their names and (presumably) their prestige by getting the smaller trainers to boycott Yarmouth has clearly not worked and I hope it has done their reputations more harm than good.
 
Songsheet, I wasn't saying Dunnet was talking claptrap. rather that Wood was writing claptrap.

richard
 
It looks like two separate issues to me.
If Christine Dunnetts owners want the horse to run than the horse must run if it's healthy. Surely the fact that only one horse has been entered in the race makes the point that the other trainers wished to make. They should have used their common sense and perhaps Christine should have picked up the phone and explained her position to Mr Wall.

However I do think that the prize money issue needs to be tackled. I believe the lack of prize money in the U.K. will keep potential owners away and I don't accept that smallers owners are content to race for pittance.
 
Sheikh, the point was definitely made - and as Christine went public in an e-mail response to Mark Johnston it brought it to the attention of the racing press too. It is also very sad to see an ex trainer jumping on the band wagon calling Christine Dunnett a scab and incinuating that she uses the brain tumour charity that Christine supports since the death of her husband as possibly a way of attracting potential owners to her yard. How low will some people stoop?

As a racehorse owner of course I would love the prize money issue to be addressed but through the proper channels, not by those trainers that apparently make enough on the training fees anyway dictating to the smaller trainers how they think action should be taken. If they want to boycott a race at one of the UK's bigger racecourses, then I will watch on with interest how the owners of the horses affected react. This is not the trainer's battle it is the battle of those that own the horses and simply employ the services of the trainer.

Total respect to Christine Dunnett and shame on those individuals that have jumped on the bandwagon and tried to drag Christine's name and reputation through the mud when as far as I can see she has done absolutely nothing wrong.
 
Fudge, perhaps Christine's owners (those people that pay her) asked her to run the horse at Yarmouth and were not interested in the views of the Newmarket hierarchy or their hanger on in Middleham. Like all good trainers she would have followed their instructions, afterall he who pays the piper....

Perhaps, Chris Wall (or the nominated spokeperson for the Nemarket self appointed "increase UK prize money" task force) should have asked for the phone number of Christine's owners (which she would almost certainly have refused to hand over) and put his point of view across to them. Much easier to pick your fight with a fellow female lesser known trainer perhaps. shrug::

The Yarmouth farce has certainly put Christine's name on the map, and let's hope that indirectly she, or her chosen charity benefits from this incident and who knows perhaps she may also get an apology particularly from Mark Johnston but I don't suppose she will be holding her breath waiting for that to arrive. :)
 
I take your point fudge, but there was never the remotest hope there would be any long term benefit from boycotting a race at yarmouth. If the message to be got across is that owners are not willing to race for that sort of prize money, it is quite obvious to all concerned that it is not true.

It looks like the others trainers are upset because Christine Dunnett has tried to pull a sneaky one over on them rather than because she is taking a political stance. Obviously you would have to be privvy to conversations prior to the event to know whether this is justified, but it is what it reads like to me.
 
Oh, so boycotting one race at Yarmouth would have guaranteed more prize money, Fudge for her owners? Get real.

If Chris Wall & co wants to make a real impact rather than a token gesture why not suggest to him to start boycotting some of the bigger racecourses where there may be races also offering paltry amounts of prizemoney to the owners. What about Newmarket racecourse to start with, nice and local for them - they could picket outside the gates and hand out leaftlets etc. Why stop now they have all this momentum going and all this great publicity? :rolleyes: I am sure his owners and those of John Gosden's and William Haggas' will be willing to play ball if they explain their reasons behind it. More power to them. I wait to see what plan of action they dream up next.

As for Christine, let her have her 15 minutes of fame. She didn't ask for any of this to happen and if the big Newmarket boys continue to take direct action against the offending racecourses, and they are successful resulting in a few more £'s in her pocket I am sure she will be eternally grateful to them all. In them meantime, I am sure she has a business to run and a few hungry mouths to feed.
 
Why don't these trainers get the trainers federation to organise something?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, it would surely be more effective than what has just happened - a load of Newmarket-based silver spooners bullying a small time, struggling trainer, and consequently scoring an own-goal.
 
Not sure they have scored an own goal, Ven.

OK, one or three of them come out of it looking a trifle shabby, but the subject has probably received more column inches than it would have if Dunnett had withdrawn hers as well.
 
Spoy on Ven, from what I've heard the decision was made one morning on the gallops. Pub, fag packet and pencil comes to my mind.
 
I wonder which one had the fag packet, which one had the pencil, and which one had the brilliant idea! shrug::

An idea that took 3 top class trainers to have the vision and insight of boycotting one Yarmouth race on a rainy Bank Holiday weekend to bring to the fore the subject of the low prize money in the UK. It actually sounds like an idea that was dreampt up by three 7 year old kids in a playground at a Newmarket Primary school.

Christine Dunnett sounds like their teacher that told them to stop being so ridiculous, told them she would follow the instructions of her owners before giving them all detention and 2000 lines each.
 
Strange that everyone seems to have overlooked the small point that the whole "bully boy tactics" claim hinges on Ms Dunnett's allegations that she was the only small trainer with an entry engaged in the race, ergo she is being unfairly bullied ~ when I believe at least 4 or 5 other small trainers had runners entered but on talks being held amongst the Newmarket trainers, didn't declare either.

You can either have your cake or eat it, Ms Dunnett - not both, at least not whilst milking as much publicity and public sympathy as she can manage at the same time as play acting the poor, wronged soul.

I think Melendez has it in a nutshell - she has deliberately pulled the wool over the eyes of the trainers she agreed with in the early stages in a pitiful attempt to pull a sneaky one on the Newmarket trainers, fully knowing there would be no other declarations. I'm just glad the meeting was abandoned so she doesn't pick up a false winner.
 
Venusian,

Quite right an officially organised NTF/ROA boycott would be the best thing to do, but sadly that would be illegal.

Back in 2003, when the NTF and ROA responded to levy board cuts in minimum prize money values by urging their members to boycott races with a minimum value of less than £4k, the OFT intervened to say that was in breach of the 1998 competition act. The NTF and the ROA had to withdraw their recommendation to members. It was then down to individual owners and trainers to make their own protests. Which they did, the most famous one being the boycott at Sedgefield Those boycotts and the threat of more, whether coincidentally or not, resulted in the levy board ( the bookmakers) announcing that levy payments had increased and minimum prize money levels were restored.

Hopefully, if as Fudge says, more boycotts are planned, they will work in 2008 too.

Well done Fudge, keep going, what you say is spot on.

richard
 
Originally posted by richard@Mar 26 2008, 10:38 PM
Back in 2003, when the NTF and ROA responded to levy board cuts in minimum prize money values by urging their members to boycott races with a minimum value of less than £4k, the OFT intervened to say that was in breach of the 1998 competition act.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this would breach the Competition Act.

It doesn't seem any different from a trade union urging its members not to work for firms paying low wages.
 
DSC_0181Arthurstillsmiling.jpg


So this just goes to show what lengths Mrs Dunnett will go to find a horse to run in the next proposed walkover race at Yarmouth!

Just trying to lighten things up a bit btw
 
Just because a few other trainers agreed, Fudge does not make the decision right. There is possibly the same amount of trainers that supported Christine's decision. It is certainly bad for the industry to continue the name calling just because Christine did not fall in line. The dispute highlights the lack of prize money issues but also highlights the "them and us" division between the ranks of the flat trainers.

Fudge, Christine is not a fool, she is a very intelligent, hard working individual whose livelihood depends on getting her horses on the track and racing. If you want to call people fools, perhaps your name-calling would be better directed at some of Christine's owners although it is clearly much easier to pick on the person that decided (on this occassion) to say no.
 
Mark Johnston should be applauded for supporting the Newmarket trainers despite having the top rated horses in both maidens at Yarmouth, have read his email to Christine Dunnett, there was nothing offensive in it and she did do a U turn.
chrisbeekracing, can you list all these 10 and 15 grand maidens? it will be a very small list and also list the ones worth under 3 grand?
As for the Warwick maiden, it was £3500 to the winner and Johnston, Haggas and Bell had runners.
It must be very difficult to co-ordinate this sort of much needed action against paltry prize money as if you do it at entry stage people with the shortsight of Christine Dunnetts owners will step in as chrisbeekracing said he would have done.
Why are Yarmouth allowed to stage a meeting with so little prize money, is there no limit to what they can offer? Northern Racing are a disgrace, Pontefract show how a track should be run.
I look forward to seeing more action taken against other tracks and races in the near future now there is some publicity regards this issue.
 
I would definitely agree with the "Northern Racing are a disgrace, Pontefract show how a track should be run." statement.

It was a pleasure, as it always is, to hear Norman Gundell (sp?) being interviewed on Racing UK yesterday. If all Clerks of the Course/Racecourse Managers had his approach the sport would be a lot healthier.

I am more or less obliged to support Northern Racing meetings as they seem to have the monoply on the courses in this part of the world, Chepstow, Bath, Hereford and it is obvious what is top of their list of priorities.........the lowest grade of racing that they can get away with.
 
Back
Top