Imperial Commander

I can't stand reading comments from NTD, permanent chip on his shoulder. Always spends more time talking about other peoples horses than he does his own. He should take a more "let's do the talking on the track" approach.

Are his comments today on the rp site?

Dunno, mate - only just got around to reading the newspaper.Nearly wrote exactly the same thing as you about him talking about other people's horses - he's also quoted as saying Long Run 'has been a bit novicey in some of his jumping' - now, call me old fashioned but that might have something to do with the fact that Long Run was a novice!

You'd think he'd be happy to talk about his horse all day long without the need to crab the others.

if he spent as much time concentrating on why imperial commander only runs well at cheltenham and nowhere else as he does on talking him up then maybe hed have a few more prestigious grade 1 wins to his name. work nigel, dont talk, work

He's probably a nice enough man, but he just comes across poorly with his comments and attitude in the media. He just doesn't come across as well as PFN in the media. When Denman answered all questions about him in last years Hennessy you could see Paul was reduced to tears. Things like that just make you like Nicholls.

Have to agree with all the above, find him very tiresome.

Stick to your own horses, Nige!!

Seems like its a 3 race campaign....Betfair Chase/KG and Gold Cup.

He was poor at Aintree...but he never has run well at Aintree or Kempton which is why I'm surprised they are heading to the KG again after him performing so poorly 2 years in a row around Kempton.

in fairness he has to have a go at the george, its a massive bonus and hasn't done the horse any harm the last 2 years. ( even tho he will not win this years gold cup )
he was extremely careless and a fool for sending a gold cup winner to aintree. a nice guy but blinded by greed
for what its worth with barry on board he should be very Very VERY afraid of long run
if only henderson could get barry on the mighty long run he would win every top race this season

he's a nob....aren't we getting close to the point of the season where we'll all be told...."they're not running bad, it's just that they're all badly handicapped now"

NTD might be a bit eccentric but he is actually a pretty nice guy.  He can be very intense and protective, especially about his horses, but I think I'd rather have a combative trainer than a 'take it as it comes' sort.

Until three or four years ago, he would never talk to the press.  I asked him why and he told me he got very nervous and tongue-tied and was afraid of making a fool of himself.  I don't know him well but I believe that, at heart and by character, he's naturally shy and solitary.

He's doing something he loves and doing it well in the main but, given the choice, I think he'd rather stay behind the scenes.  I know it irked him hugely that all the talk in the run up to the Gold Cup was of Kauto and Denman and that experience has probable made him even more determined do all he can to ensure his horses and staff get the credit they deserve.

Like the rest of us, he's not perfect, but I think racing would be a considerably poorer and less colourful sport without him.

He is a very nice guy and a lot shrewder than most people understand.

Duffy - he understands fully he doesn't have the quality of horse to compete in peak season, hence the reason he starts early and gets as many winners on the board as possible before the main stables step up there number of runners. On that basis and given the quality of horses he has the stable form can never be maintained throughout the season. He wins more races with moderate horses than any other trainer in the game, be interesting to see what some of the so called top trainers could produce if they were dealt the same hand.

As for his comments now billed by the RP as a "stable tour" !!!! - We were asked to host the day by Betfair and Haydock Park to promote the Betfair Chase - he simply answered the questions he was asked honestly and openly. As he was asked specifically about other horses I cannot see why he should be criticised for answering the points raised. Having been subjected to the disgrace that was the "two horse" gold cup promotion using £400,000 of Levy funds (promoting not only two horses but one stable) I cannot see why he should be criticised for fighting his own corner.

PFN permanently talks about horses from other yards and regularly knocks them albeit often in a rather sneaky way. I think his competitiveness is what makes him so efective, and it is why i like him so much, but it also leads to lots of ***** talked about other peoples horses. And if  WAF wins the GC i'll give up the game.

i'll replace 'sneaky' with subtle.

I agree PFN does it too and did n't appreciate he'd been asked specifically about the other horses. However, he could reply that he'd rather just focus on his own horse - Alex Ferguson regularly refuses to answer questions in press conferences, often telling the press what he will and won't talk about before the conference even starts.I s'pose an answer along those lines would n't go down particularly well with Betfair and Haydock Park and would n't generate the publicity they're seeking.

Agree that the two horse Gold Cup promotion was a disgrace and can understand why he was irked.

All this has a lot to do with the need to 'talk up' events in order to attract new interest I s'pose. Would be interesting to know how they measure it's impact and what additional revenue the £400k investment mentioned by Bobby generated.

Years ago, George Best used to go on Parkinson and talk about his life of wine,women, song and occasionally about his brilliant football - one of his managers (Wilf Mc****ss, I think) said that George needed to understand that this was 'great for Parky but not so great for George' - would draw a parallel with NTD and Haydock Park and Betfair.The world's changed a lot since then,of course,and the media provoke controversy in order to generate interest.

Wilf McG u i nness, ffs!

I Agree the Kauto v Denman Gold Cup campaign was a disgrace, and if I was NTD I'd have a whole bag of Mccains on my shoulder.  I spent all friday trying to find an Imperial Commander scarf to no avail.

Reaseheath - The £400k produced a lower TV audience than the previous Denman / Kauto clash - Gold Cup day was sold out but would have been anyway, and the only beneficiary was Cheltenham racecourse. Racing For Small Change claim it was a success because of the additional media coverage generated, as ever it is something that cannot be measured and therefore leaves them without accountability.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, my point is simply that the blunt honesty of a the less than media savvy NTD should be seen in the context of the questions he was asked. He is a true sportsman, their may be a view that he over faces his horses on occasions - but as I said in my earlier post he doesn't have the ammunition of the bigger stables and simply cannot compete when the main strings of the top yards are unleashed - but he doesn't believe in giving up and he counteracts that by targeting the beginning and the end of the season, and taking the occasional leap of faith.Year on year he manages to achieve remarkable results, with a fraction of the investment of the top yards. He has great days and bad days, takes them all in his stride then gets up the next morning and kicks on again. Above all he is an all round good egg, and if he can help anyone he will - the sport needs more like him. 

Other trainers are simply much more media savvy and can use the media in more subtle way - that doesn't make them better for the sport.

Fair enough, Bobby - at least his comments were thought provoking and made a change from reading about Wayne bloody Rooney anyway [:)].

Lets be honest guys, for as good a trainer as Paul Nicholls is, he gets most of his owners because hes got the gift of the gab.

If NTD had the same string of horses that Nicolls does then he would do as well or probably even better.

Lets be honest guys, for as good a trainer as Paul Nicholls is, he gets most of his owners because hes got the gift of the gab.

Never a truer  word said on these forums

I don't think the gift of the gab gets you most of your owners ??  Surely your training ability?


Gift of The Gab would mean Linda Perratt would be champion trainer in that case  [;)]

GT, how much of a part do you believe PFN actually plays in the day-to-day training? Doubtless he's the 'Chief Executive' and makes decisions on key factors, but his main role has been to use his personal talents to build the yard he now has.

Any top trainer's skill lies in getting the best staff available, the top jockeys, the state-of-the-art facilities and, of course, the owners and horses to support it all.  It's a chicken and egg situation to some extent.  You need to persuade owners you can train to get decent horses. The more good horses you get, the greater grows your reputation and the more owners want to send you their good horses - a virtuous circle, and a very tough one to complete and keep going.

So all credit to PFN for his CEO abilities, deft handling of the media and political nous in dealing with issues (though I thought his halo slipped badly in his handling of the Sam Thomas affair), and for keeping all the plates spinning.  He's a very talented man but not necessarily a 'gifted' trainer.

steeplechasing, his halo didnt slip, its just he bred for the lat and cant jump. he fell

Lets get one thing straight, PFN is briliantly savvy with the media, but his gift of the gab is not the only reason why he attracts horses and owners - its also because he is a brilliant trainer and results count. Yes, its easier to train a high quality string, but he invarably has his horses 'right' on the big day and they usually hold their form, they rarely run out of form. Can anyone remember him having a really bad year, or periods where his horses run particularly poorly? Of course last yr they had a patchy yr, but when does he have a dire yr? I dont for a second believe this is only cos he has quality horses - some quality horses get sent to some trainers and they **** it up. Nicholls rarely does. As a punter, i know he runs his horses as straight as anyone, and i know they they are usually 'sweet' and 'right' - that might be easier to achieve with good horses, but anyone who thinks having good horses is the only important ingredient are deluded. NTD is a good trainer, and a nice guy seemingly, and i love what he brings to the game. I also back lots of his horses.

excuse the lack of spelling, laptop on the blink

Im not for one minute suggesting that PN isnt a very good trainer. Im merely saying that he got himself to a certain level as a trainer & then kicked on to the next level, by putting himself into the public using the media via television, newspapers etc.

R Carver, I did mention plenty other requirements before I came to good horses . . .

Any top trainer's skill lies in getting the best staff available, the top jockeys, the state-of-the-art facilities and, of course, the owners and horses to support it all

Look Steeplechasing, I know you dislike Nicholls for what happened with Sam and the Tingle Creek. But he is an excellent trainer and couldn't get to where he is without being one.

Bobby owns IC and NTD has trained him to a Gold Cup win. So he'll know him well as a man, and as I said I'm sure he's a very nice chap.

As for the 2 horse race Gold Cup, you know why they did it. They were trying to promote the sport to the wider world. Of course it wasn't a two horse race, nobody really thought as much.

What I would have done if I were NTD would of been happy to fly below the radar, let them underestimate your horse, there is no disadvantage to that since talking is done on the track.

As far as it's Denman and Kauto who have things to answer, the former yes the latter? He fell in the Gold Cup and won his other two starts last season, IC won the gold cup, lost his other three starts (two to Kauto) and fell on his last start also. It's not as simple as that but I've never heard a word of praise about Kauto Star from NTD.

I do agree with him though that t's moronic to say IC cant go right handed when he had legitimate reasons for his failure on his last 3 starts right handed.

Hello CVB, nice to see the new season picking up momentum.

I don't dislike Nicholls.  I think his behaviour, especially in putting public pressure on his jockey at a time when he least needed it, was undignified and slightly cowardly.  And the way that PFN started to try and 'repair' things with Sam afterwards suggests to me that he regretted his conduct at the time.

When you or others say he is an excellent trainer, what exactly do you mean?  I've explained why I believe he is successful - tell me what powers you believe he has that set him apart, as a person, an individual trainer of racehorses from, say, Jim Goldie?

CV - ultimately the difference is in the quality of the horses. Whilst Martin Pipe relied on one key owner PN has assembled a group of owners who can fund a constant supply of new talent. He has  feeder yards in Ireland and the Uk, as well as access to the best of the french recruits. As such he starts with a massive advantage, indeed the only trainer with access to the same sort of funding and backing is NH and it is no coincidence that these are the only two stables with a chance of winning the trainers championship.

PN and NH are absolutely top class trainers of great ability, but their superiority is based upon the ammunition they have available - IMHO given a level playing field there are a few others who could do equally as well.

I don't disagree that there are many top trainers out there Bobby that would do a fantastic job; but in my opinion, you only end up with the most affluent and progressive owners wanting to invest, and send their horses to you, by proving you are a top class trainer in the first place?

Or are all the owners sending their horses to PFN and NH just because of their name alone?

I doubt it.

Absolutely not Lee SHA, training is like any other business it requires a number of key skills. Top of the list is the ability to organise, effective communication and the ability to build personal relationships. Neither PN or NH inherited this position they built it bit by bit, and in PNs case it is simply a phenomenal rise. He deserves huge credit for what he has achieved. It is this expertise that has allowed him to develop and keep his ownership base and build his "dream team" string. 

My point is simply that the difference between the top two and the rest is not the ability to train horses, it is in other areas. Both PN and NH are absolutely top class trainers, but what sets them apart from other top class trainers is not in the training of horses.

A word of warning to the argument - ammunition and investment generates winners....JONJO!

Sorry Steeple if that read as having a go at you - it wasn't supposed to, or at anyone particularly.

I stick by my point that, however, that excellent PR skills are not enough (John Edwards proved, in a reverse way unfortunately, that they are part of it), and neither are good horses alone - though good horses are a massive help. The ability to maintain a strings form and campaign and sweeten horses are definate skills. IMHO Venetia WIlliams does as well as anyone given the limitations of her string, and she has demonstrated when she is given quality horses she can win big races.

NO worries RC.  My point is that 98% of the stuff you credit to PFN is actually carried out by his highly skilled and experienced staff using his very expensive facilities and the best nutrition.  Yes he has maintained consistency without a really bad season but his level of ammunition and, I suspect, his location far away from other strings and their coughs and colds has helped in that.

His credits lie in finding and employing these staff, recruiting  top owners to pay for the facilities etc etc.  There is no 'magical' horse-whispering affinity that some would have you believe when they talk about top trainers.  What they are, almost to a man/woman are very gifted managers and PR people.

Your mention of Venetia's skills only reinforces the point that good horses and not hard to win with.

Steeple - i certainly agree with that, i do not agree with the heroic man version of history, as some would have us believe, and think (like you) that it reflects well on him to have engaged good staff/facilities/horses/owners etc. In fact, maybe more than most other trainers, PFN is always quick to emphasise it is a 'team' effort. I just also think that some people who employ the best facilities/horses/owners/staff still manage to mess it up. Godolphin for instance! But i suspect there is not much difference between our opinions.

And yes, nice to see it all picking up momentum - and its not even November yet! Thanks, RC.

agree with steeple
how hard is it to gallop a horse up a hill a couple of times
its all about your horses and getting them handicapped to win races
thats the skill in my eyes
not running the best horses in the land to pick up graded races
anyone can do that.

lol v funny

I have a chunk of a horse with Kevin Prendergast (TIZTHESHOT) who is a genius, (Prendergast not the horse) - to quote him in todays RP - "The training of racehorses really has not changed one bit. A good horse wins no matter how it is trained". Whilst that is typical of the man who as well as being a genius is incredibly unassuming and modest - there is some truth at the core of his statement. At the end of the day the trainer can get the horse fit, and ensure it is prepared for the day - but he cannot increase its ability.

BD do you think some get more out of some horses than others? Some seem very capable of keeping them sweet, campaigning them intelligently and keeping them from getting sick. SOme seem (usually the ones i back!) talented at campaigning them badly and ensuring they get sick every november!

i think that there are large variations in how a horse does with one trainer compared with another. eg... For Non Stop. As i am a nick williams fan i can provide more... pistolet noir, bradford boris

Hi R.Carver - I  think there are a number of factors in play.

Essentially the trainer either can or cannot produce the horse in peak condition.

The facilities available have some impact, although I have seen trainers who have trained winners on a horse walker !

Once a stable gets to a certain size then Steeplechasing is right it is down to the staff as much as the trainer. In yards of that size the vast majority of horses will have a rigid regime, the few like Kauto, Denman, Big Buck etc will be given a more tailored program. So the quality of staff is a key factor. So for the rest of the horses they are subjected to a well tried and tested routine, and it hopefully produces the horse to the best of its ability.

I believe this results in a lot of horses falling through the cracks, and there is evidence that some of these horses can be imnproved by changing the training method and routine.

The profile of the horses in the stable is a major consideration, as you can only play the cards you have. In the case of PN and NH they would have very few low grade handicappers. Their wins in grade 5 / 4 and 3 contests would usually be handicappers or novices on the upgrade. That and the volume of ammunition available leaves them less concerned about maintaining handicap marks, as most that hit their ceiling will be heading to the sales and won't stay in the yard. For a trainer with lower grade horses and little potential of churning them they have to lay out a plan and maximise the impact of their successes.

There are some trainers who should be avoided when you are looking to buy a horse in training. Top of the list should be NTD, he conditions a horse better than anyone in the business IMHO - hence nothing that leaves ever seems to find any improvement. I was astonished when PN paid £350k for The Tricky Trickster.

When I assess a trainer it is always in the light of their ability to play the hand they are dealt and get the best out of the horses under their care -my current list is NTD / WM / GE and KP who are all top draw despite having very different quality of horses at their disposal.

Hi Bobby, thanks for the interesting and full reply. Again, like with Steeple, I agree with what you are saying. I think some trainers have a better knack than others at placing and campaigning a horse, although obviously entries are to a large extent dictated by the quality of the horse being placed. I am doubtful that this element is a large team decision (though some owners seem to have more influence than others) and in my (albeit fairly modest) experience of ownership this decision seems to be the preserve of the woman/man holding the lisence. The old motto is suggestive here i think - 'it takes 5 years to build a horse up, and 5 mins to ruin it' - this seems true to me, and many good trainers carefully observe it.

I also believe some, through the combination of all factors you and Steeple refer to, are able to ensure their horses rarely get sick, or when they do, the damage is contained. Again, this is a team effort, and as you and Steple rightly say, the team is organised by the trainer.

Interesting what you say about facilities - i have tended to place more emphasis on this than you perhaps do, although i suspect there is little to no difference in te facilities of the top yards. One of my fabourite horses was Unsinkable Boxer, and was fascinated to see how Pipe transformed that horse. The Pipe regime and facilities were obviously legendary, and though they did not suit everyone's taste, this looked to me like a clear example of how one trainer with his facilities and regime could effect huge improvement in a horse.

Thanks Bobby. RC.

Bobby, Steeple - I agree that the level of PN success is down to the stream of talented horses he gets, but there is no doubt he had to be a very good trainer and indeed a bit of luck to get to where he is. When you start off you start with nothing, he worked his way up the ladder until the magical 99 festival. You have to give the man credit for building his operation, hiring the right staff, especially Ruby Walsh. Yes he got lucky with Kauto Star when Clive was originaly after Garde Champetre.

After reading all of the posts, Bobby, Steeple, RC we are all pretty much have a similar opinion on this. It's more down to the definition of what it means to be a good trainer? is it specifically the day to day training of the horses or is it building and running a fine operation and campaigning your horses well.

My personal opinion is that their aint a lot of difference between most of the trainers when it comes to getting a horse to run at its peak.Think virtually all of them know what they are doing in that respect.Placing horses correctly i would think is a tad more difficult,particularly if you are a relatively small yard or one with a lot of handicappers.
The top yards like NH and PN would mainly have horses at a high level where their plans for the season would be fairly clear early on,and i would think that makes placing horses a fair bit easier.

This has been a really interesting thread for me,and it is great to have people on here that you just know are telling it as it is.The thread started with some comments about NTD which have since been corrected by someone that actually knows him well.
BD, and Steeple also have talked a lot of sense on here,and its good to see others realising that and coming round,rather than trying to argue their original points.

What makes a 'great' trainer?  No doubt in my mind that M Pipe changed the face of NH training forever. He did so by doing basic things differently.  When he set out, NH horses were got fit on the racecourse; it was accepted by the training fraternity, stewards were complicit in turning a blind eye, and regular punters knew the score.

Like successful people in most avenues (Betfair in particular) you need an Edge on your rivals.  Pipe's was to get his horses supremely fit and ready to run for their lives from October onwards.  The fitness element was bolstered by getting many of his runners to make the pace, leaving rusty rivals in their wake.

But Pipe got no credit from his peers; he was shunned and looked upon as an upstart and bit of a barrow boy come party-pooper.  He wasn't willing to go along with unwritten old-school rules.  Eventually, all other trainers had to adjust and do things Pipe's way. 

Pipe was a great trainer because he found an Edge and kept it and when the others caught up on the fitness front, he found other Edges and exploited them ruthlessly.

Nicholls is a great trainer because of all the things mentioned in earlier posts, but what was his Edge?   To my mind it was a combination of fierce ambition,  very strong self-belief and, something almost every successful person needs, a healthy dose of luck. (I haven’t read his book, and he might not admit to any of these ‘attributes’).

He left school at 16 to join a point-to-point yard and then learned his trade as a conditional under another ‘legend’, Josh Gifford, before joining David Barons as stable jockey.  His substantial bulk these days shows you the level of ambition he had as a jockey – I suspect he must have had to waste constantly.

My memory of Barons was that he turned out plenty of mid-range winners but did not have many stars till Broadheath and Playschool came along; these horses  brought Nicholls to the fore as a jockey with back-to-back wins in the Hennessy.

His riding career was cut short (after 133 winners) by injury and he became assistant trainer to Barons for two years before  deciding he was good enough to go it alone.   I seem to recall a bitter statement from Barons that Nicholls was far too full of himself and destined to fail as a trainer.

Now comes Nicholls’ real lucky break , imo, Paul Barber was advertising a facility at Ditcheat and Nicholls was the successful bidder to be tenant. Nicholls’ first winner, Olveston, was owned by his father.

I don’t know if part of the tenancy deal was that the very successful Barber would give Nicholls a few horses to train, but just two years into his career he won his first Grade One,  the Feltham, with Barber’s See More Indians.  From there it was a steady climb to the top.

That fiery ambition and self-belief seems to burn as strongly as ever and probably generates one weakness in the trainer (far from uncommon in trainers in general, I suppose, but not something M Pipe suffered from as far as I recall), a defensiveness and lack of objectivity when things go wrong for him.  In defeat Nicholls can seem surly and quick to try and find excuses.   In contrast, Pipe would learn as much from his mistakes as from his successes.

Ruthlessness is another of Nicholls’ characteristics – a good thing or bad thing depending on your viewpoint.  ‘Difficult’ owners have always been the bane of any trainer’s life and there’s little doubt Nicholls has one or two who make demands other trainers would simply not be willing to meet.  Nicholls appears ready to play the political game to any extent if it means him keeping the best horses (achieving the double-whammy of ensuring they’re not sent to his rivals).

I’m not convinced these machinations sit comfortably with his conscience but what do you do when ambition over-rules everything  else?

Anyway, that’s my take on the current champion trainer.  The title of Richard Pitman’s autobiography was ‘Good Horse Make Good Jockeys’.  The same can be said about trainers; it takes a real duffer to sabotage a good horse’s chance of winning decent races.

But the secret is not just getting good horses, it’s keeping them, and renewing the supply season after season.  The sum of Nicholls’ skills has made him the master of achieving just this.  Good luck to him and all NH trainers and their horses in the current season.

Steeple, may I doff my cap to you sir; that was a quite brilliant read.

I've not yet read, at any time, on any of these forums, something as true or as well thought out as that.

Top class read

Good stuff Steeple, I like it. I remember the late great Capt Tim Forster saying, after viewing (or possibly just reading about) Pipe's regime - 'it seems i have been giving my horses a holiday for 20 years...' But we could probably run a new thread devoted to his great sayings!

great stuff indeed Steeple. top thread all round.

Thanks for the kind comments gentlemen.

As always Steeple an absolute pleasure to read that post.

Thanks CV.  I enjoy yours too - well, most of them

Great stuff steeple... great read , great knowledge , and my utmost respect...

Very enjoyable read, Steeple. Excellent thread overall and big thanks to all those who take their time to share their knowledge and passion for the sport on here.

I wonder if we will ever see another Martin Pipe, in the sense of being a trainer who for a time clearly stole a march on the other trainers through developing an edge in the approach to the actual training process?

I generally accept the point that others have made on here that the basics of training a horse well for racing would seem fairly uncomplicated and therefore readily copied by others. I am also interested though in possible comparisons between human athletes and performance horses. Subtle changes and improvements in training regime, partly as a consequence of intensive study by sports scientists, have been an important factor in the gradual improvement in performance among the leading (human) track and field athletes in recent years. Any edge derived from this source by individual athletes (or national teams) presumably is usually quickly lost as rivals make similar breakthroughs or improvements in their training regime. Nevertheless, there is increasing appreciation in track and field athletics, as in many other sports no doubt, that the range of factors contributing to the achievement of peak performance is both very wide and highly complex. By understanding those factors better, incremental improvements in performance become possible.

Clearly, there are many differences between human athletes and performance horses that would impact on what could be achieved through the application of scientific knowledge to the training of horses for racing. It is also possibly the case that there is far less money applied to the study of equine performance by comparison with the funding of sports science in other areas. I also suspect that the emphasis on breeding being a (the?) key variable in the performance of race horses, possibly creates a certain resistance (consciously or otherwise) among many in the industry to the idea that the scientific study of training processes and regimes would be of much benefit in improving the performance of horses.

If we are ever to see another trainer gain a significant edge through their approach to the actual training process, as Martin Pipe did, the most likely scenario would perhaps be that this would be achieved through better application of scientific/veterinary knowledge of the factors influencing equine performance. Whether such an edge would last very long, is another matter. PN seems to use breathing operations quite a lot for his horses, though as modern science goes that is possibly still a fairly crude and unreliable technique for improving the performance of race horses. As breathing efficiency though is obviously such an important element in the performance of horses on the track, and is influenced by a range of factors that are interlinked in complex ways, including links with diet and housing in addition to physiological conditions and exercise regime, there must be scope for some significant further breakthroughs in our knowledge about how to improve airflow and breathing efficiency in performance horses.

I doubt modern trainers are quite as conservative in their thinking as reputedly was once the case, and no doubt many are very receptive to new ideas about improving the training process and related factors influencing equine performance. How far though they are maximising the potential advantages to be gained from current scientific knowledge in the field, in NH racing particularly, I am not sure.

One problem with science is that while it does deliver breakthroughs and improvements, that is only usually achieved through a lot of experimenting in the first place (and many failed or fruitless experiments at that). If some trainers are resistant to experimenting with new ideas on matters such as diet, training and housing, that would hardly be surprising given the competitive pressures they are under. If they take the view that it is better to stick with tried and tested ways of caring for their horses, rather than go down the riskier route of changing things significantly, that would be quite understandable.

There is always going to be more encouragement for applying scientific knowledge to the training of human athletes, not least for the obvious reason that the human athlete can report back on whether or not they think a particular change in training regime is having a benefit or not. Much harder to monitor the effectiveness of science-led changes in training approach with horses.

Its all part of the evolution of our great sport and life in general.

When pipe set about his training regime it was revolutionary, his methods would be a starting point for most trainers today, in 20 years time it will be different again, i have no doubt about that, whether its through scientific intervention or not, whats new today is old tomorrow.

new methods only relative within the generation they are used... or do we consider the methods of 50 years ago are better? probably not. so its all relative.

So how does Michael Dickinson fit into all this? I think he achieved extraordinary win rates(like 40%+) in the early '80s. What do people think was his edge?

Superb stuff aka and I guarantee you'll have Bobby Dazzler's mental juices flowing with some of the points you make.

ribellaro,  brief response for now on MD; he showed many of Pipe's qualities having a relentlessly inquiring mind, driven more by some of science aka mentions than Pipe's basic 'how do we get a betting edge'? philosophy.

MD would have flown to the moon if he heard someone there could offer him a piece of advice that would improve his horses by a pound or two.  Much more highly strung than Nicholls, what he needed was the full support of his owners through bad times as well as good.

I think his Manton experience did serious damage to his confidence for a long time but from what I hear these days, he'd be ready to advise even Nicholls how best to train horses.

Above all, as we keep saying, he had a proper millionaire's row of horses in his Yorkshire yard for most of his career; his lucky break was being the son of a couple who were already well established and training very good horses.  MD took them to another level.

Steeplechasing hit on a key point for the sport in that Martin Pipe fundamentally changed the way horses were trained. But I believe he did more, he fundamentally changed the way in which races were run. The key to Pipe was his obsession with the fitness of the horse, in order to get them fit he used interval training up a steep incline, which was not in itself revolutionary. But he backed that up with an edge on nutrition, the ability to monitor the horses level of fitness through blood samples and a ruthless approach to regime - each horse being pushed to the limits of endurance to achieve peak fitness.

Whilst all of the criticisms have there foundation in terms of the longevity of his horses careers and his make or break attitude to new recruits - he was honest and up front in that his priority was always his owners. He never believed in sending a horse to the track that had not reached 100% in fitness. 

Given that his horses had the edge on fitness he began to exploit that ruthlessly, with most of his horses ensuring that an end to end gallop was maintained at all costs. With the volume of runners he had and other trainers attempting to copy the model this pattern became standard for all races. Most races became a gut wrenching test of stamina where fitness was the absolute key. The net result was increased pressure on the horses as the races took more and more out of them. Even today this pattern persists in the UK, although following his retirement we are beginning to see some change towards races being run at a slower tempo.

Contrast that with Ireland where the races are run at a modest pace and horses actually quicken towards the end. In the novice races horses in Ireland are produced at less than 100% and jog around for a nice education. In the UK the same run would result in horse, jockey and trainer all being put against the wall.

I believe Martin Pipe's overall legacy lies in the fact that he raised the bar on equine fitness to new levels, and forced trainers who wanted to compete to rethink their training methods. However I cannot think of any trainer who has tried to replicate those methods in absolute terms. I have visited a lot of yards and I am always struck by how many different ways there are to do the same job. On a visit to Jessica Harringtons yard I was stunned to watch Moscow Flyer the quickest chaser around at the time work at a snails pace over a pro-longed distance in really deep Wexford sand, Willie Mullins trains on a roundabout, NTD uses two 5f hill gallops one deep sand and one fibre sand and there are many more examples.

As well as fitness the owners have a part to play in this - it is their thirst for instant success (and they are the customer and provider of fees) that heavily influences the trainers actions. IMHO that has led to a number of magic fix approaches being adopted, the wind operation being the most frequently used. A horses ability is benchmarked and decisions made about his future in frightenly quick time. Contrast that with Captain Tim Forster whose stated policy was to run horses in novice hurdles close to the owners home on the basis they were meaningless contests and he didn't want to inconvenience his owners wishing to turn out to see them. I have been in conversations with three top trainers recently all of whom said "it cannot do any harm". Interesting they didn't extoll the benefits of the process. NTD used to have a lot of wind ops, talking to him recently I asked him why he had reduced the number so dramtically - he said it was because when he analysed the results they never worked. I am firmly in that camp. That is not to say soft plate adjustments cannot assist, but you can never restore the horse to its full potential and in the vast majority of cases performance will remain the same or even decline.

The other factor that the new generation of trainers have to contend with is the breed becoming lighter and lighter and therefore less able to handle the physical stress of interval training over a period of time. For that reason I suspect Pipe will still be seen as the man who led the way in 20 years time - as the next edge may be difficult to find.

This is superb stuff. A brilliant example of what is so compelling about the sport i.e. that it is both very accessible but also has tremendous depths and byways to explore for the enthusiast.

If only the media people could find a way of better reflecting these aspects of the sport that are so interesting, in the way they cover horse racing. When Channel Four took over coverage of test match cricket a while back, they took things to a new level by exploring much more the intricacies of the sport and making these supposedly esoteric aspects of the game more interesting and accessible for the viewer. For a time at least, they attracted quite a bit of new interest in the sport based on viewing figures and feedback from viewers.

Media coverage of horse racing is missing a trick or two, I feel, by not presenting the sport sufficiently 'in the round' i.e. by not explaining, or exploring, enough the background factors (including the stories and characters involved) that contribute to the production of winning race horses (and jockeys/trainers). By no means would that be a complete answer to how we might broaden interest in horse racing, particularly among younger people, but potentially it is one of the best assets the sport has in terms of capturing the public's imagination, imo. The (legitimate!) 'behind the scenes' world of horse racing has a richness of technical and human interest that many, who are not currently enthusiasts for the sport, would likely appreciate very much if it were better presented to them by, among others, the media.

aka, your last post should be required viewing for those at Racing For Change and the broadcast producers who work on racing.  Broadcasters themselves - the decision makers, at least - seem to have no understanding of the intricacies of the racing world and their natural reaction is to dumb it down; they don't understand it, so why try and make their customers do so?

An intriguing idea: more to follow!

Here here, a superb read. Thanks all for the insight

This whole thread should be printed off and sent in a big fat "IMPORTANT INFORMATION INSIDE" envelope and sent to Racing For Change.

Some brilliant stuff on here.

Good read, as always. Unfortunately the sport is about to go the way greyhound racing went. Too many factions within the sport with no common interest. As for pipe his use of red blood cell advancement was also key to his success if you read the reported press..coupled with interval training gave a distinct advantage....many believe the walker will be the next key aid....all about opinions...think the sport is losing punters to other betting sports which will be the eventual nail in the coffin of a once great sport.

Fascinating stuff from all and especially BD as ever. NTD is a wonderful trainer in my opinion and seems to be getting more successful at bridging the gap between Dec and March. The combination of NTD and Paddy B seems to work very well with similar personalities or am i talking rot?

It does seem that IC prefers Cheltenham most and well so do I so happy days. I wish you luck for thr season.

An excellent read for which I am very grateful. Respectful, constructive, and very informative. It's a pleasure to be able to share the thoughts and views of so many informed people with a mutual love for the sport.

Not doubting M.Pipe as a trainer , but before him didn't J.Jenkins mop up the early season novive hurdles, and now he struggles to get a winner under both codes.Good trainers will always get the best out of the horses that are sent to them, which covers M.Dickinson who i think was better than most.

Well done with Tiz The Shot, bobby. Delighted for both you and Kevin.

Thanks - a bit dizzee - he is improving all the time, will be capable of winning Group 3's, but not for us !