Is Quinlan having it off today?

Graph doesn't have a very smashy look to it.

3.4 now

be odds-on in a minute

Managed to get it dropped 11lbs in 2 months

i was watching this at 5s but decided to hold off until before the off

unbackable at this price for me

Hinted at a revival lto apparently?
A few in there that could spoil the party.

you better give Willie a wake up call now

Indeed he is

F ucking disgusting

Lucky boy Donahue

Laughable **** RANCID TO THE CORE

People have to eat

that race left a bad taste

Last year I counted various interviews in the Racing Post where the old quote 'British racing is the cleanest in the world rolled out.

Good job we have honest journalists.

anyone kindly post a link so I can watch the race please ?

Seriously good ride !

you cant blame connections for this type of stuff cause the prize money is terrible...........but what happened today is embarrassing for UK racing.........this horse did not try in its last few starts..........1st world country but z racing when it comes to integrity.......and the bookies who run the game wont take bets........laughable set up the whole thing

halcyon days     06 Jan 13 18:50 
^ Journos are part of ''the loop'' mate !

NOT ALL

Claims Five: The Quinlans and their surprisingly well-backed winners

Michael and Noel Quinlan make a habit of winning low-grade races with horses fancied despite a lack of recent form

Chris Cook GUARDIAN.CO.UK
Friday 8 July 2011 14.01

A winner at Wolverhampton on Tuesday caught my eye (after the race, alas). He was trained by Noel Quinlan, brother of Michael. The two men are based in Newmarket and have had some high-profile successes, winning the Queen Mary at Royal Ascot and the Fred Winter at the Cheltenham Festival, but mostly it seems that they are incredibly dangerous with well-backed runners in low-quality handicaps.

Michael used to hold the licence in his name but it was passed to Noel earlier this year. As far as I know, the operation works in much the same way as it has ever done.

Ensnare, their winner on Tuesday, was the latest to follow a pattern that makes the Quinlans hard to love, from a punter's perspective. I have collected five examples below.

Broadly, their common features are these. The horse has shown some ability in the past but now seems to have lost it, running very badly for several months. During that time, he drops a long way through the weights, yet starts at ever bigger odds.

Then, a day comes when it seems that everyone wants to back him and he starts favourite or close to it. The money is right; he runs much better than his recent form and wins or is narrowly beaten.

Afterwards, there is always something to which connections can point that explains the improved showing. The horse will have had a recent break and be better for it, or will have had treatment for some ailment. The distance of the race will be shorter or longer than for his latest disappointment, or he may be wearing some kind of headgear for the first time.

Whatever the detail, it is enough to dissuade the incurious stewards from holding a formal inquiry. The Quinlans accept the congratulations of those present, who can be sure that something similar will happen again before long.

Horse racing in this country depends for a large part of its income on the willingness of punters to bet on all levels of the sport, but it seems to me that you could hardly blame a gambler for leaving low-quality races alone if this is the kind of thing that can happen without the authorities taking an interest. When a horse wins in these circumstances, you have basically no chance of picking it unless you decide to follow the money.

In my republic, connections would be required to state on the morning of a race any factor which they thought might result in an improved effort from their runner, with the information being published on a website and in betting shops. If no such factor was stated but the horse was well-backed and won, there would be hideous consequences for those concerned.

But we do not live in my republic and are the poorer for it. Neither the stewards nor the British Horseracing Authority will protect us, it seems, so we must do what we can to protect ourselves. Take note of these examples and be wary for anything similar in future.

The Quinlans, of course, have not made the world in which they work. It is hard to make ends meet in this game, yet it appears that they have a collection of satisfied owners and that makes them much better trainers than all those others who hardly win a race from one month to the next.

But they can hardly expect punters to admire them for winning in this way. If their owners have made a few quid, it will have come from people like us who imagined the form book could be trusted.

Again, they are hardly the only trainers who sometimes win races in these circumstances, but they have done it enough times to catch my eye. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and each one of these horses was backable on the basis only of the pre-race information. If you happened to profit from any of them, do let me know through the comments below.

I should say that, in three of these cases, I have no direct knowledge as to whether the Quinlans or their owners placed any bets. Noel Quinlan has said that he backed both Bishopbriggs and Tell Halaf.

1) Royal Island, December 2008

Royal Island had started out with Mark Johnston, for whom he was second in the 2004 Woodcote Stakes and again in the 2006 Lincoln, off a mark of 99. He was sold to Michael Cunningham's yard in Ireland but spring 2008 found him back in England, trained by Michael Quinlan.

On his first start for his new connections, he was fourth of nine at Newmarket in mid-May, prompting the Racing Post's analyst to note that he was "handicapped to win at his best". He was on a rating of 84 that day.

Four further defeats saw him dropped another half-stone. Then, he hacked up in a seller at Chepstow but the handicapper was so unimpressed that he was another 2lb lower for his next start.

From 28 August to 2 November, Royal Island ran another eight times but seemed to be losing his form, starting at increasingly long odds and getting beaten further from one run to the next.

When he showed up at Wolverhampton on 6 December, there was little enough reason to fancy him, except that he was now running off 57, two stones below the rating for his Newmarket run seven months before. Then again he'd been stuffed four times over the same course and distance over the previous two months.

This time was different. "Well backed" according to the Post, he went off as the 2-1 favourite, took it up with a furlong to run and was soon clear before being eased down to win by two lengths.

If you want a reason why he may have improved on recent performances, you could look at the fact that he had had a month's break before this run, the first time he'd had such a gap since his Chepstow seller. Then again, he had a month off before his next run and finished last of 13.

It was the start of another bad run. He was never better than ninth in any of his next seven starts and was 33-1 or bigger for the last four of them.

Then, in September 2009, history came close to repeating itself. Despite his woeful form over the previous nine months, Royal Island went back to Wolverhampton, was the subject of "strong market support throughout the day" (the Post), started as 2-1 favourite and ran really well, being beaten by just half a length.

Punters everywhere were doubtless gutted that the gamble had not quite come off this time.

2) Tallest Peak, December 2009

The four-year-old Tallest Peak had raced 10 times without success when he ran at Wolverhampton, eight days before Christmas. For his three starts the previous month, he had been 16-1, 9-1 and 28-1 and had finished ninth (in a seller), ninth and 13th (of 13).

Why might he do better this time? Well, he was down to a mark of 49, 9lb below his original rating from his first handicap run seven months before. He was wearing blinkers for the first time and stepping back to seven furlongs, the distance at which he had been a decent third at Kempton in September.

"Well supported" according to the Post, he started at 7-2 and won by four lengths, looking well ahead of the handicapper. Still, that effort now seems a one-off, since he was beaten in four starts over the next month and has not raced since.

3) Bishopbriggs, December 2010

Bishopbriggs had won a couple of races at Wolverhampton in January 2010, not long after joining the yard from John Ryan. The second of those wins came off a mark of 58 and he was raised to 63 but, after a losing run of eight races, had dropped back down to 54 by the following winter.

And he really lost those eight races. On his next start after winning, he was eighth of eight, then ninth of nine, tenth of 11 and tenth of 12. In his four runs after that, he was never better than seventh and started at 25-1 or bigger each time.

At Lingfield on the day before New Year's Eve, he was still 12-1 half an hour before the race but was then heavily backed and started as the 11-4 favourite. Making most of the running, he pulled clear in the final quarter-mile to win by four lengths.

The stipendiary steward noted an explanation from Noel Quinlan that the horse's back problem had been treated since his previous start three months before. Quinlan also said that the yard had been out of form for much of the year. This was enough to dissuade the stewards from holding a formal inquiry into the improved form.

4) Tell Halaf, December 2010

Just half an hour after Bishopbriggs, the Quinlans pulled off the same feat with Tell Halaf, for whom market support emerged at the same time as for his stablemate. Having been a 7-1 shot, he started as the 9-4 favourite and won almost as comfortably as Bishopbriggs, albeit cheekily by just half a length.

Tell Halaf had raced respectably through the first half of the year when trained by Michael Bell, winning at Lingfield in May off 63. But he seemed to lose the plot after joining the Quinlans in July, finishing 10th, 11th, 10th, 10th, 10th and ninth on his first six starts for them.

Then came the Lingfield race and sudden success. By this time, he was running off 54, 20lb below the last mark he'd had when racing for Bell.

In six previous runs for the Quinlans, Tell Halaf had not got within 13 lengths of a winner. Still, the stewards were not moved to hold an inquiry, being reassured by the trainer's statement that the yard was in better form than when he had last raced, two months before.

"I didn't go into the stewards' at all," Noel Quinlan told me the next day. "The stipe took notes off me, took them to the stewards and they've accepted my explanations. I couldn't see why they wouldn't. We're talking about ****, low-grade handicaps."

He admitted to having had "four £20 each-way doubles" on Tell Halaf and Bishopbriggs at odds of 8-1 and 7-1, which would generate a total profit of around £6,000. "Four or five owners have made a few quid," he added.

"Are we not supposed to back horses now? We do whatever owners want us to do. If they send us a horse and say, tell me when he's really, really ready and get him in the worst race possible, that's what we'll try and do."

5) Ensnare, July 2011

And so to Tuesday's race, by which time the licence had been switched from Michael to Noel. Ensnare, the beast in question, had won three races for Ian Williams before passing through Jeff Pearce's yard to join the Quinlans early this year.

This week's race was Ensnare's fifth for the stable. In his first four, he started at 20-1 or bigger and finished twelfth of 13, twelfth of 13, tenth of 10 and eighth of nine. He raced out the back through all four races and never got within 11 lengths of the winner.

At Wolverhampton on Tuesday, having dropped a stone in the weights since joining the Quinlans, he raced prominently, hit the front two furlongs out and pulled two and three-quarter lengths clear of the opposition. He was returned at 11-2 after "proving strong in the market throughout the day" (the Post).

The Quinlans do not appear to have been present. Their representative told reporters that the horse "has had a break and has freshened up at home. He was ridden more prominently this time and the drop back in trip has helped as well".

As to that drop back in trip, Tuesday's race was over seven furlongs, which is indeed shorter than the mile of his previous run. On the other hand, he had been stuffed on his two runs before that, both over seven furlongs.

The same representative told the stewards that Ensnare had benefited from a two-month break since his previous run and from the use of a blindfold in the stalls, credited with helping him get a better position from the outset.

Presented with this information, the stewards opted not to hold an inquiry. Frankly, that seems a mistake to me and counts as yet another step towards a future in which no one trusts the lower tier of our sport enough to risk their money on it.

I don't blame Quinlan at all......its the system and stewards who are rancid imho

Colonel Blimp & his friends drink too much gin... early doors, which can lead to temporary blindness ! Noel & Michael seem to have 'the game' by the g onads !


The Handicapper just doing his job, and lets be fair, getting the early prices !