if you're a sentimental owner and make a bond with a particular trainer, its easy for you to go check them out at the same time and hear the opinion from the same people working in that place.. I won't knock RR because he did in fact upped the level of competition and other trainers/owners are trynig their best to keep up with his team. Hendo made improvements with the way he's training his horses to handle soft ground, giving thm more options, etc. It adds a level of competitiveness even if it leaves a bit to desire on how RR listens to Mullins on every single thing. The only thing that RR made Mullins do was to get give horses more trips to England so thats a positive, right?...

justin and usain interests are not aligned like its the case with horses owned by same person/s.

timtin - i am not saying rr is all bad - i think he deserves a lot of credit - but i can at the same time think his model of one trainer and not letting his good horses run against each other is not good for racing - my very first post says i think he is doing more harm than good - that implies that he is doing good but not enough to counter balance the bad - i think at the heart of EVERY spectator sport should be the fan, the spectator. Once they stop becoming the top priority no matter what the sport is then that is a bad thing in my view

ccm - for tomorrow - the comparison is not the sport  (i know i am naieve but i think i fugured that athletes dont have owners and horses dont run twice the same day) that is not why i used athletics  - I am talking about the common theme throughout all spectator sports that fans expect and want to see the best compete against each other and when you deny them this it is not in the interest of the sport - yes of course it may well be in the interests of an individual in the sport (like an owner that wants to win as much as possible) - or a boxer avoiding a fight with someone he might lose too - but not the sport itself.

so again i get why he does it - telling me repeatedly why he does it doesnt make it any clearer to me because i already get it 100% - i just believe that if he didnt the sport as a whole would be better

Can understand your point of view BUT you're making an assumption that good horses come easy to WPM and RR. I don't know the number of horses available to be brought each year but only a tiny percentage make it as genuine Grade One horses. That means when they do get a good one, they want to enjoy him/her winning as much as they can. Whilst we're all frustrated with unanswered questions like Faugheen vs Vautour over hurdles, Vautour vs Un De Sceaux, Annie Power vs Jezki/MTOY vs Hurricane Fly, I think you used the wrong analogy comparing athletics to Ricci.

Ricci is able to spend millions on a sport with no good return. He's a businessman so should know better. He'd be better off buying a football club for a potential big profit. So he's in it for the enjoyment. The point of view you should be looking at is Ricci as a parent rather then simply an owner. If those horses were his children, I'd imagine like most parents, they want their kids to be the best they can be and despite some races holding more prestige over others, a Grade One is still a Grade One. Those kids are playing, to use a football analogy, for the same team. Different races is simply different position on the football field with the same goal as simply winning.

I think a big part of the problem is RUBY has too much power, and plans are often switched around so he can have a top ride in each festival race.

We always here "Ruby will want to ride them both" etc; but that is across all owners - Ruby wants to keep Ricci's and the Wylie's seperate because it increases HIS chances of festival winners.

Ricci should grow a set if he is convinced x should run in y, but when you have a Champion Jockey and a Champion Trainer both saying the same thing in your ear (especially if he is fairly new to the sport), who is he to question their judgement?

Not saying that's the correct way round, as he pays the bills, but from his point of view Mullins and Walsh have provided him with plenty of festival winners, and at the end of the day, that' what he's in it for.

We've seen him start to bring some over to England more often now (I'm sure he lives in England), so I think it's only a matter of time before he starts sending some good novice hurdlers to Henderson or Nicholls.

cause and effect - again you are missing my point - i am not saying i dont understand why he is doing it and i am not saying it is not to his own benefit (again for the millionth time i understand - nobody needs to justify this part on his behalf any more I AM SAYING I DONT THINK ITS GOOD FOR THE SPORT - and why i am at a loss is that for somebody to invest so heavily in a sport i cannot understand why they would not put the sport itself ahead of personal interest - or in other words get everything out of the sport your money deserves -, fun excitement, money glory e.t.c. e.t.c. but not at the expense of the fabric of the sport itself - and at the heart of any sport imo opinion should be the best facing off against each other. because horses have owners and athletes font imo should not change the basic concept of best v best

as for the parent piece ask the parents of the williams sisters how they would feel if their children decided to alternate tournaments so they maximised the chance of both of them winning something (and imagine how fans of the sport would feel if they decided to do this) - i guess luckily for the owners of race horses - horses probably dont have the same competitive instincts as humans (i.e vautour is not going to get upset if he is not asked to race against djakadam and even if he did he wouldnt beable to tell you

so just in case there is any confusion left - i used athletics as an analogy NOT because the sports are the same but because the sport would suffer if the best didnt compete against each other - NO OTHER REASON -

so lets use football to illustrate the ONLY point i am trying (obviously badly) to make - if somebody owned both bayern munich and barcelona - and entered one in the europa league and one in the champions league to maximise the chances of both being successful (of course that cant happen so please dont take me to literally) but it can in racing - and if that happened in football i think it would be bad for the sport - i am now off to have a valium

The expansion of the Cheltenham Festival has made it easier for horses to avoid each other (Quevega, Annie Power, the JLT, the Ryanair). However, I find it hard to believe that, if the Gold Cup were to be run next week, RR would not run both Djakadam and Vautour in it.
There must be examples of him running two in a top class race, though they don't spring to mind.

thanks ccm - i totally appreciate it is unrealistic to expect him to change - but that doesnt stop me wishing he would and in fact my lack of expectation that he will change is why i worry for the sport - because if others copy his model (because the personal benefit becomes compelling as those who justify rr have recognised) then i think the sport will be poorer for it. Owners like the aga khan (please forget about jpm as this has threatened to derail this thread too much) have gained enormous personal satisfaction from a sport they clearly love and have managed to do it while keeping the most basic essence of the sport alive i.e. the best should compete together even if i own them both.

And if more owners chose rr s model racing will become more like cycling where it is only the best of each camp that really compete (please before the temptation is too great for people to tell me the differences between cycling and racing)  - yes i know i am just trying to illustrate how i think racing would change - i dont want the best of each camp racing each other i want the best full stop. Same as i wouldnt want a country to only be allowed one athlete per event in the olympics as this would severely impact the sport.

Have to completely agree with CCM here.  Whilst in a wonderful world we'd love him to race his best against each other, if you had the chance of winning multiple festival races, you put your own interests first, by spreading your horses out, hedging your bets, rather than putting all your eggs in one basket.

The Aga Khan perspective, I think they are more bothered about creating very high value stallions that can cover mares for thousands and thousands.  It is worth the risk for them to run against each other, because whoever wins will increase their stud value several times over.

From a personal point of view, I own a small share in Sound Investment.  His long term target after he won the Old Roan and placed in the Paddy Power is the Ryanair.  If Vautour was aimed at the Ryanair and was pulled out the day of the race, would I be upset? Not a chance, I'd be made up.  From a race perspective it will be a big loss, but it is a big personal gain for me, so whilst the purist may not like it, it enhances my horse's chance of winning.

I go back to my original point though, and suggest that this rarely happened when Ruby was split between Nicholls and Mullins.  Forgetting the Ricci angle for a minute, Ruby didn't have the power to dictate where a horse could go because he had loyalty to two stables - it was probably more Nichols and Mullins both saying  "I'm running x in this race, you choose who to ride out of the two of us so we can sort a jockey out if you don't want it".  Now with Walsh being full time at one stable, I think he can dictate a lot more where horses run for his own personal gain.

btw well chief did you know ak runs geldings against entires in group races - seems pretty sporting to me

So your point is that you want one owner to do what's best for the sport ahead of his own interests? FWIW I'm actually on your side wholeheartedly but I do understand Ricci's POV. He also has WPM and Ruby whispering in his ear for their own interests. Bottom line: he is NOT responsible for the greater good. If he's not happy about something, he can follow John Hales and transfer his horses elsewhere like JH did with Al Ferof when both disagreed on targets last season.

Well Chief is spot with Ruby as probably the decisive factor. Ricci has gone on record he wants Ruby on board. That was a couple of years and I very much doubt that has changed. If Ruby wants to ride another horse (UDS) then Ricci has a call to make. Run without Ruby or switch race. You're asking him to make a decision based on the greater good but Ricci has evidently made his decisions or agreed to those decisions based on Ruby's availability. It is what it is.

BTW, love your passion for the sport but we cannot the control of actions of others! GL

I think you're actually the MAJORITY! I'm with you. He's an American. They only love winners but despite his aversion to finding out the best of the best, he has been decent for the sport pouring money in.

Yeah, I think we are all tending to agree here, in that we can all understand why he does what he does, but if we were in that situation, we might go about it in a different way (or we'd like to think we would anyway).

I think we should all be cheering on Gordon Elliot's horses, because he seems most likely to me to be able to put a dent in the Mullins/Walsh domination, and then maybe Ricci/Wylie can send some to him.

The Mullins/Walsh combo is all about number of winners imo, not the quality of winners.  We would all loved to have seen Quevega have a crack at Big Bucks, all racing fans wanted to see it (Voler La Vedette did, so why not Quevega), but they went down the easy route instead - Ricci was nothing to do with that, so I think it is more Ricci has been sucked in to the culture of the stable.

PS: Cheers MS.  He's up 4lbs for his placed effort in the Paddy Power, so will be a tough ask on Saturday.  Hoping he gets to Cheltenham in one piece.  I'm sure he'll find one or two too good, but you can always dream

maelduin - i agree - this is why i am so torn about the kg - i am a big dc fan and on one level would love him to win - i also feel cc has not been treated great so on another level would love him to win - i have less emotional attachment to vautour but i feel him winning the  kg well could be the easily the best result by far for racing as a whole - as itwill put this debate well and truly in a very bright public spotlight.

I feel if Vautour wins the kg impressively with no question mark and full of running  there will be a great deal of scrutiny around rrs decision whether to run him and Djak in the GC - there will be very little opportunity to site a reason for not running both other than the real reason if he choses not to (in other words his ability to pull the wool over our eyes by saying something like not sure he will stay the extra 2 furlongs simply wont hold enough water to be treated seriously - he would be forced to reveal his real motive (or be seen as completely disingenuous) - i.e. i would rather try and win both the gc and the ryanair than try and finish first and second in the gc. it would be really fascinating then to see the sports reaction

The alternative would be that a circumstance has occurred to make him rethink his stance and he runs both in the gc and that he then gives himself the freedom from that moment on to run his own horses against each other at pivotal moments because he starts to get what other owners have grown up knowing - some races are just so special that i am almost duty bound to honour their prestige even if it means a personal sacrifice.

so come kg day i am now a supporter of vautour despite having my own personal reasons for wanting dc and cc to win.

c&e - i agree about the american and winning thing but he has chosen to be part of a british sport - and the sport doesnt just need money it desperately needs integrity and credibility too and not pitching the best against each other damages both imo

I admire your passion MS. Fair play.

Best of luck with Sound Investment Wellchief and we know you'll be hoping Vautour performs in the KG. Hey if you happen to be in the Nicholls yard please ask about that monster Aux Ptits Soins. What a horse to win the Coral Cup first time out. You're now my go to person for info on the Nicholls horses. j/k

bet ap's thinking that dp and i were made for each other aaaaaaagh -

Has anyone on here actually said Ricci would be better off sending his horses to other trainers?

Budd over the last couple of years people have suggested that owners should send their horses to other trainers and you suggested this in your 07.19 post earlier today - I said the likes of Ricci.

Jolly the horse you refer to was so far ahead of everything else (bar possibly Flyingbolt) that it probably did not matter how he was campaigned but I've no doubt Mr Dreaper carefully crossed all the Ts whenever he ran. You will be aware though he never raced him against Flyingbolt and if he had its very unlikely they would have won anything like the number of races they did. The reason he was campaigned in handicap races was that there were only a couple of grade one type races in those days. On the other hand it is generally agreed that Best Mate was a good one but not the greatest horse ever but he won three GCs and for that hats off to one Henrietta and in my opinion that was as good a training feat as we have ever seen. Horses are very strong but very delicate animals and they need careful minding,

I Was saying other owners not Ricci would be better off with other trainers in regards to the fact that they would not have to compete with Riccis horses for the right to compete in top races.
I have no seen anyone advising Ricci to go to other trainers,just people saying it would be better for the sport.