I used to love Howdi's fact of the day. Brought a bit of fun to the forum

Why would it not be supplemented? Great chance to win, would be madness not to.

wellchief • February 17, 2016 10:34 PM GMT
Laugh I used to love Howdi's fact of the day. Brought a bit of fun to the forum............if you are listening maam , may i recommend a knighthood

Chief I dont see why you should be upset because a rich person can splash out £20K whenever he wishes - thats the way it is in the real world and applies across the board in every other aspect of life and it is racing after all which is a rich mans sport. If one cant splash out £20K I dont believe one should be in horse ownership anyway.

* withdrawal

I think people have a right to question the morals of adding a horse to a race, when it has been quiet clear all season it was not its target,not even mentioned in passing.
You back a horse antepost trying to get what you think is a nice price and it gets injured,yep we take it on the chin,even when you back a horse that's lame at the time of placing the bet(Ar Mad). As we all know...that's antepost.
But the effect Faugheen has had is another matter.

Because of his withdrawal,his connections decide to mull over the possibility of putting AP in a race that as said,has not even remotely been suggested. The aftermath of that possibility actually happening is huge for antepost backers,and although its allowed and connections have a right to contest any race with a horse its allowed to run in, for me (and apparently others)it leaves a bit of a sour taste,and I would expect a reaction from those people.......rightly or wrongly.
I don't think it unreasonable to try and avoid this happening again by suggesting some sort of change in the supplement system,entries etc.
I am sure we are all understanding folk on here.....well I would like to think so anyway.And can sympathise with those affected financially.

The only reason Annie Power would be running in the Champion Hurdle is the owner's greed. What credentials does she have for winning the race? Her two defeats in a fifteen race career were both at Cheltenham. She has never beaten a single horse of note over two miles. The only horse she's beaten who had a sniff of the CH was Zarkandar and he wasn't good enough to place in the race. Two years ago she wasn't considered up to taking on The Fly and he finished fourth behind The New One ffs. She's 7/4 with some firms and that's just another example of rubbish ante-post odds in a season that has been characterized by garbage ante-post markets. Anyone backing her at that price is an idiot.

I think there's a horse welfare issue as well. Throughout her career (she's already 8) she has not been prepared for a Champion Hurdle. Her preparation this year is particularly risible with the two other jockeys at Punchestown deciding before the start that they'd stick to a private race between themselves. AP has not been tested at Champion Hurdle pace. She fell in the egg and spoon race last year and there's an increased chance she'll fall again in a faster run race though this time she may not be so lucky.

Here's the thing, in the past when Walsh and Co has been questioned on why AP isn't in the CH especially with many of us thinking that it was purely to look after HF, the response has been, " hey, the mares is there for the taking, why not run her in the race that gives the best chance for her to win", they may have been eyeing up the WH this time but if they were asked the same question last week you would have gotten the same answer as a couple of years back, well the consideration now about putting her in the CH proves conclusively that all the previous was indeed cr&p as we all knew anyhow.

*PUTS ON FLAMEPROOF JACKET*

APower may not been the one supplemented for the CH, it appears Mullins has plenty of Supreme candidates and, well, just saying, Min could move there.

If there was no supplementary stage then Annie Power would've been entered for the champion hurdle just in case anyway.

I don't think it's immoral or anything like that and I don't care one way or the other all I'm commenting on is that I don't believe the best race stuff they come out with, I believe that if asked last week what would happen if Faugheen got injured, I don't believe they'd say that AP would be supplemented, just as I don't believe they'd have said that for HF either.

On the subject of her now looking like running in the CH, would a horse that had been aimed at longer races have been trained in a completely differently to one that had been targeted at a more speed contest, we know she's had setbacks but her prep such as it has been must now look to have been even more ideal in relation to the race she's actually going to run in....or are they all trained the same way?

I'm no trainer but I think we sometimes worry too much about how horses are trained for specific races - I think class normally comes to the fore, so as long as you are fully fit and on good terms with yourself, I doubt it would be that big a deal. I'm sure plenty would disagree though...

I don't have any hassle with the trainer and owners picking any race they want that was the chance I took and except even though it is and will be a kick in the stones! But like I have already said I think come the cold light of day and the dust has settled they will stick to the mares! As its a definite easy grade 1 so why risk it... But they might the only slight upside for me yesterday was I have a good eway bet on nichols canyon and have artic fire in a eway lucky 15 so not all bad! But I must say this is the 1st year I have had a good few antepost bets and think it will be my last... Or least not bet so much early and just accept the prices on the day. But that's the chance and choice we all have to make. I just can't wait to get on with it now and get the action started :)

On a personal note it has affected some of my early accas before nrnb, but generally I think I have got off not too bad,ive had no big single bets on Faugheen or Annie Power or VVM.
Losing Faugheen has helped me in that respect having backed Identity Thief and MTOY at nice odds.
Also have Nicholls Canyon in some nice multiples which I had virtually given up on.

Do feel for those that may have fared a lot worse though, and as I said earlier I don't blame them one bit for having questions.

Got to say I'm with you Budd, but each to their own.  My bets on TNO and Nichols Canyon are much better and lost nothing on Annie, but it still seems wrong that she's entered in 2 races and going to run in a race she's not entered for.

I think this is an interesting topic, but if people prefer, we can just regurgitate the same conversations that we've been having for months about Vautour, Don Cossack etc where they've gone round and round in circles.

Also, those who disagree are coming across as quite condescending by the way; making out people don't know what they're talking about when all you're doing is putting up an alternative opinion.

Budd I dont have a problem with what you said at all but it annoys me when people on an anonymous forum point fingers at others. I think owners should be encouraged as much as possible because it sure aint a way to make money and we should be delighted when rich owners decide to invest their money in the game - I'd suggest waste as a more appropriate word.

My understanding is that the supplementary stage was introduced in 1999 in UK/Ire. Most years horses are supplemented for the Epsom derby. In fact the derby winners of 2000 2001 and 2003 were all supplemented and of course that includes none other than Gallileo himself - not a bad coup for British racing. The aim of the idea was to have the best horses running in the race and to increase prize-money and it has achieved those aims. One downside to the idea was demonstrated in 2003 when a Brendan Duke trained horse who had gone through the normal entry route from the beginning was not allowed to run because 3 other horses, including the eventual winner, were supplemented. No doubt the horse, Skelligs Rock, would not have won the race but the connections were denied a run which is quite a bit worse than having a non-runner in a small ante-post yankee.

I'll also add that many people on here and elsewhere have backed horses in the Cheltenham handicaps long ago even though the entries are not due out for some time. We know that you may say but we know horses may get injured and others may be supplemented.

Arkle, I think the comparison with the Derby isn't the same though.  I may be way off, because I don't follow flat racing, but I think it must be a lot harder to gauge whether your unraced 2yo etc, or one with a light 2yo campaign will be good enough to win the crown jewels of flat racing a year later; so supplemented horses will normally be higher because you might not have known what you had in the first place.

As I said earlier too, flat racing to me is all about, how can we get as much stud fee as possible once a horse is retired.  Therefore, their rich Sheik owners will supplement horses all over the place, to try and get that elusive Group 1 next to their name, as it increases their stallion potential massively, and then they get their money back later on down the line several times over.

I see National Hunt as a completely different game.  We have known about Annie's ability for about three years now, and my view is, well if you didn't enter her in the first place then it is tough s**t, the deadline has passed and you missed it.  I don’t like the way you can just buy yourself back in to a race, it’s like buying more chips in poker when you’ve just been knocked out of a tournament.

For me, this is not anti Willie Mullins or anti Rich Ricci – far from it; I’d feel this way no matter who it was, and like Budd and Shocks, this decision doesn’t effect me financially.  I know it is in the rules that you can do it, but I would prefer it if the rules were there for instances like Coneygree, when it was an admin error, when they forgot to send the email or whatever it was.  I think there should be a rule for extenuating circumstances only, based on that horse for that race why it wasn’t entered, not related to any other horse dropping out.

budd, it exists because there's money to be made for the BHA. It's rarely used in NH racing for obvious reasons.
Agree that it is not the best way for it to be run and would much prefer the system whereby if you don't enter, you don't run.

But to go from criticising the rule to casting moral doubts on those that play by the rules takes the discussion into a completely different and, for me, ridiculous dimension.