4.25 Why did Supersta win?

I remember watching a BBC documentary about the Northern lights with Johanna Lumley many years ago

Bad grammar ..... I would like to point out I was not with Johanna (I wish)

It was Proform top rated and their tissue guide was 4-1. I backed it at 11-2. I can see, with it's running style and it's official rating of 93, that you would either be reluctant to run it because of kickback or there would be few opportunities for it with such a high rating but I'm amazed it never ran at Southwell earlier in it's career? AW mark must go to @ least 100 now I would of thought. I think the BSP (5.88?) was lower than the official SP of 5-1. Don't know if that tells you anything.

War Department, Hugh Taylor's tip was stuffed, and yet the silly sod told you why that might happen - the 1 draw. Maybe one to look out for next time?

Andrew, was looking at going in January 2018. Am going with a few mates so will pass your suggestions on to them for their perusal. We can fly to Tromoso from UK which (along with the far north status of the city) makes it appealling but we wouldn't want to stay for a full 10 days so travelling back via Sweden is most definitely an option. Will defintely wrap up warm regardless!

Barton, this is the Joanna Lumley documentary ref the Northern lights, it will give you an insight of what to expect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMDmB2z2j4

She also visits the village of Kautokeino (the name of a maternal great-grandsire of Kauto Star, and the source of all horses with 'Kauto' in their name, and therefore demonstrates how 'Kauto' should have been pronounced).

Alexander Armstrong also did a nice little series of programmes where he visited the far north. I think he got stuck for a night on the Sweden/Norway border when the weather closed in.

ihal essex 21 Mar 17 22:02

Agreed Lady Carla but wouldn't it be nice to spread the 'good feeling' especially among the poor sods you keep in the dark while getting paid to advise them?

Not content with the gravy train slurping, they're actively engaged in misleading the betting public! It all adds to the pot don't ya know!


And you would be the first with the foul-mouthed tirades if they did say they fancied one and it got beat....ffs they didnt even fancy this one for reasons given 

Good luck with Suresta.

Don't let Mick Appleby waste him like he has done with the other horse.

Supersta - apologies.

Duncan Idaho: And you would be the first with the foul-mouthed tirades if they did say they fancied one and it got beat....ffs they didnt even fancy this one for reasons given  Crazy

It's because of village-idiot utterances like the one above that the fraudsters are allowed to prosper! Didn't you notice the morning line projection contract from 16/1 to 5/1 you lemming!!!
Now continue racing headlong to the precipice you mug!

Which horse are you suggesting that Mick has wasted, barstool?
Ihal Essex, you're talking bollocks now. The morning line projection was clearly wrong. Nothing to do with the owners fancying the horse. I didn't back him at all and I think a couple of the other owners had small amounts on. You could find plenty of examples of horses being punted, but you are way off here.

morning IHAL, i think you letting the running of this horse takeover your first valid point regards the racing press.

ive no idea why the op stated that that supersta was ever 16/1, then casually in his next post say " well maybe not 16/1 but 8/1 " !!

not so much of a gamble when you use that price as a starting point, as had been mentioned if you thought the horse would act on the going

8/1 was a gift.  alas i was not privvy to that info.

Morning GlasgowC: delighted for u, it's always 'a good feeling' when the odd nut is occasionally unearthed especially by a blind squirrel like myself! I did not have a bet in the race but have to confess that, despite the media connection, to being somewhat impressed by Barton Bank's articulate defence of the 'mini coup' in which he wasn't involved! And, at least, he's spared us the old chestnut of stating Supesta 'always runs on its merits'!

If you still think after reading the above that a coup has taken place, you must havev a screw loose tbh.

Think Supersta is one of the few AW horses ive never backed, always struck me as the type of horse that could outrun its mark in a listed race if things fell right, not sure why.

Glad to see him doing well for you BB.

Cheers, Jet. Gven he is going to be rated high 90s minimum he might get the chance to prove your theory at some stage.

BB: just one simple question : Has Supesta been allowed to race to the best of its ability in every race since you became involved in its ownership?

Yeah, we just try and place the horses to win. He's won 7 times since we bought him and you win more races by trying to put your horses in the right races and trying than you do by arsing about and stopping them. On virtually every start where he has had a decent pace to run at on the all weather he has run well. A few times this year his chance has been scuppered by slowly-run races but he was there to try on all occasions. He was given a **** ride by Spencer last season on one occasion but it certainly wasn't at the request of the owners/trainer.

BB:

The horse who I was referring to having his career wasted by Mick Appleby is Pearl Nation.

Wow, how on earth did you draw that conclusion?

this should be good 

I've absolutely no issues with Supersta yesterday or on any other day. It seems a horse that runs on it's merits to me. Good luck to the owners. However, a couple of the other rides (one particularly)  looked very interesting.

When Pearl Nation won at Southwell in March 2015 he was put up to 104. He could have run in any handicap in the UK that summer.He was in the form of his life.

Eileen and I wanted him see him to run at Royal Ascot. Instead, after the run in Sweden Appleby put him away in a field without even consulting us about it.

Since then I don't believe he has never tried to win a race in England.

I now believe he was stopped in the race at Southwell on 12/12/2015 (but did not realize it at the time), (doubled in price on course), Mullen found trouble when challenging, race won by Westwood Hoe owned by Craig Buckingham.

Before his next race (Southwell 30/3/16) I rang Mick on the Monday night to ask how the horse was as I was thinking of having a good bet on him. He opened up 9/2 on sportsbook and quickly went 7/2. Hills and 365 had him 6/1 but soon went to 5. I had £250 ew on at that price. As we went to the paddock on the day I noticed that Pearl Nation was showing 14/1 on the books and Moon River, Applebys other runner had halved in price to 7/2. When Chris Dixon said they were thinking of holding Pearl Nation up from his draw in stall three, I was flabbergasted (this is a big no no at this track and the horse is a galloper who needs to be at or near the forefront in his races. To reassure me  he said "if he jumps we will go forward but if he misses it we will tuck him in " Any one reading this please watch the race and make your own mind up. What happened next was even more bizzare. Andrew Mullen came into the paddock said a brief hello as he walked to the horse, jumped on him and took him down to the start early. THe only time he went to the start early before was at Catterick on his last run for Brian Baugh where he sweated up badly and ran no race. Mick Appleby had discussed this with me when he first went to his yard. When asked at the course why he had gone early Mick Appleby said "I dont know, It must be Midge's idea". The race was won by the Craig Buckingham Moon River. It was set up perfectly for him, afterwards drinking their champagne all they could talk about was speculate how much she was worth now. I think she was sold to run in the US, job done mate.

THe next couple of days were awful as it dawned on us what had happened. I checked the BHA website where it said that at the request of Mick Appleby Pearl Nation went to the start early. I e mailed him and said I knew he had asked the stewards for him to go down early, will you give me an explanation why?

His reply " it was Midge, he thought he always went down early" I still have this and if I knew how to put it on here I would. I can only think he went a bit too close for comfort in the run before so they wanted to take the edge off him.

The lie in the e mail was the nail in the coffin. We both knew we had been used and had no choice but to sell him and our share in Supersta.

I retired early due to ill health and  we bought the horse to enjoy in our retirement. Not to be. Eileen cried for days, she loved the horse.

The sale was concluded before the horse ran next at Chelmsford. No money for him 25/1. Old injury re surfaced so I was told, (smoke screen I think)

Two further runs and down to 92 now. It has taken over 2 wasted years to get there and the horses wealfare could have been comprised in the bargain (sending hin to the start early again), still, he can be bet now and that is all some care about. Owners like myself and Eileen can be used and trodden on.

So you have your answer BB. That is what we believe happened and you can tell me I am wrong, paranoid or whatever you like. I did not want to write this as there are a few people involved but what can I do, suffer in silence? Contact the BHA Intrgrety Department- I and a friend did, he asked them to interview me and guess what, not a peep from them but only to be expected I guess. .

Look after him please.

BB: WOW!!
Awaiting your reply to Barstool with great interest. Have always thought Supersta a talented animal capable of winning any race he's allowed to give his all in. Blindingly obvious he hasn't always been given the opportunity to do so!

A very strange ghostly thing happened  today after your stout insistence that Supersta has always been allowed to run on his merits - I looked out the window and, lo and behold, Shergar ridden by Lord Lucan flew past!! And I live on the 6th floor mate!!

Ihal, will answer your Supersta comments briefly before I read and reply to the long post from barstool. Supersta is a talented animal. I would like to know which races you think he has been prevented from giving his all in. As far as I am concerned you have an issue with people in the media owning horses and with the racing media in general. We have been trying all winter to win races with the horse and he has generally been thwarted by messy races, stop-start gallops, front runners dictating and not been taken on. It has been extremely frustrating and we tried the horse at Southwell as an experiment. But then I am only repeating what I have told you already.
Tell me when he has been prevented from giving his all, I await with interest.

You weren't wrong, Duncan!

I'll put the kettle on

Just watched the Southwell race and imo, broke well but Mullen was soon looking to his right to get in behind horses, despite there being enough room up the inner to drive a double-decker bus up!

Looks like there was a lovely winning gamble on the winner!

Who else knew, eh?

Not barstool

barstool, when you're watching RUK and a certain pundit / presenter is on, what are your feelings?

stop trying to wind him up !

I'm not, genuine question, I'm feeling his pain here after reading that!

I just watched the race at Southwell on 12/12/2015

looked like a trier to me . I may be wrong

BB: will provide the detail you ask for tomorrow as having engrossing conversation at the moment with Lord Lucan who tells me he feels he is in need of a good lawyer due to scurrilous press reports over an alleged wrongdoing incident  - told Lucky I'd ask Rod In Pickle Partnership for access to their brief as he's gotta be the dog's bollox!!

I'll tell ya a story about Supersta, I once ntebooked it!

Back in 2014 at Haydock under Chris Catlin, when trained by Ron Harris. If memory serves, the stewards had them in, explanations noted. The form of the race worked out fantastically well - several winners came out of it, including Supersta, even if I did have to wait 16 months and 14 runs

Chris, hi. Didn't realise that you were barstool.
The first thing I have to say in terms of horse realising/not realising his potential is that when the Dixon brothers, along with two other people agreed with you to purchase the majority share from you in Pearl Nation is that the horse was rated 74 and had won just one race in over two years in training with Brian Baugh. Over the time when we were co owners of the horse as you are well aware he won six times and his handicap mark rose to a mark of 104 in the process.

One of the main reasons (apart from not rating the previous trainer as being the same calibre as Mick) that we were interested in purchasing the horse in the first place was because as a son on Speightstown we believed that the horse had particular potential for a fibresand or dirt surface. None of the other owners (rightly in my opinion) believed that the horse would be as effective back on grass. This was an influential factor is us deciding to campaign the horse overseas and give him time off after the Swedish race. The horse was not stopped at Southwell. He had been off the track for 7 months and probably slightly in need of the run. Despite this he ran a solid race off a career high mark and was given every chance on the day (can't really see much evidence of the horse finding trouble on another watch of the race)

The horse (as all the owners were made aware of) sustained an injury in Dubai. If you don't wish to believe this was genuine, then you need to take it up with Mick. I absolutely take him at his word, Mick and his staff were disappointed with the performances of the horses from the yard in Dubai that winter but we were of the opinion that the horse was good enough to take his chance in some races out there for very good prize money. I don't recall any dissent from yourself or Eileen at the time, and if there was any it certainly never reached my ears.

Regarding the race at Southwell in March 2016, I was obviously not privy to the conversation you had with Mick about the horse the night before. Or to any conversations that have been had about the horse going to the start early or otherwise. In terms of the tactics on the day, I wasn't there but I would point out that he had come from off the pace previously when successful for us at the track. I won't dispute that the winner, who had won her previous two races (both over course and distance, I believe clocking good speedfigures for those who follow such things) was well backed. Again I can't really comment on the after race conversations because I wasn't there but trainers having two in a race is hardly unusual (particualarly as there aren't a wealth of opportunities for Southwell horses) and you would expect the trainer to be happy he had a winner and making plans for it. A horse we were invovled with (Westminster) was beaten by his stablemate on a day when we all thought he would win and had had good bets on him. He was beaten on merit by Khajaaly and although we were disappointed, we took it on the chin and didn't start looking for people to blame.

As for your comments about the horse being injured at Chelmsford, do you seriously belive that the horse would have been off the track for more than 9 months after that race for no good reason? The horse was injured and we weren't totally sure whether he would even be able to stay in training. Your view that the horse is being laid out for a gamble is (to use your own words) both wrong and paranoid. He showed enough in his work to suggest that he could still be competitive and we gave him a go in a claimer (at a price where we thought the horse would not be claimed) to see if he was still up to the job. We were happy with the run and tried him in handicap company at Wolves. He isn't as good away from Southwell but there weren't many races he could run in. Unforunately since then the horse has again been lame on the gallops and is shortly due to have a bone scan to see if we can get to the root of the ongoing phyiscal issues. It may be that the scan will lead to him being retired. Certainly he won't be kept in training if we do not feel that he is still capable of winning races. If he is retired, he is going to stay in the yard and I can assure you he will be well looked after.

I wish both yourself and Eileen well in your retirement.

Matt

I need a headache pill mow

Sorry!

George I had it in my tracker from the same run. Great minds!

Looked to be going the wrong way after, mackies, now rated ? high 90s. That Mick Appleby must be some sort of  miracle worker

What Barstool wrote would put anyone off from joining a syndicate.

Especially when you have no say in where and when it runs.

He didn't join a syndicate. He sold 75 percent of his horse in a private deal.

I have read the posts and watched Pearl Nation's race when beaten by Moon River. Appleby/Dixon behaviour is nothing short of disgraceful. You pay c.£1500 per month in training fees and don't get told he's going to post early. Then given nonsense about "if he breaks well". Mullen didn't try to get it anywhere near the fore.

Barton, to try and excuse the whole charade by citing an instance when Westminster got beat by a stablemate is a deflecting irrelevance. Pearl Nation does not belong to Appleby; it belongs to the owners and, as such, the owners are entitled to be consulted - not told - about running plans. And the whole unsavoury episode is compounded as soon as the trainer attempts further deceit by trying to blame the jockey. All involved are a disgrace. I'd be having a look at the contract that you had and be contemplating some sort of redress.

And as one of the owners, I would say that Mick's handling of the horses has been nothing short of exemplary. I am not going to debate what was or wasn't said in conversations that I was not party to. The horse ran a blinder in a race he couldn't win. The winner to whom Pearl Nation was conceding a stone on his first start for 7 months broke the course record.

Mick's handling of the horses may well be exemplary. His handling of one of his owners appears to have been quite the opposite. Furthermore, if Pearl Nation was not running on its merits when beaten by Moon River, his handling of punters and the the racing industry in general is both arrogant and disdainful.

In fairness the horse Pearl Nation hasn't shown anything since to suggest it can win off 104.

I guess Barstool sold the remaining 25% of the horse at the right time then.

I must be the only person on here who doesn't know who Barton Bank is or what journalist he is

Nosuchthingasvalue, it is a good job the horse was running on his merits then, isn't it. That performance was as good as he was at the time and almost certainly better than he is now.
maleuk01, I am not a journalist. And yes, we gave a very fair price for barstool's shares in both Pearl Nation and Supersta.

what difference does it make who he is maluk01 its an annonymous forum, for what its worth i have yet to see any proof of the so called

" gamble " on supersta, more or less 6/1 in morning and returns 5/1 ....call me old fashioned but a gamble its not.

  maybe gamblers who were prepared to take a chance first time on the track.  come on IHAL where is proof of the "gamble ".... is it because you

beleived the nonsense on here of a 16/1 morn price. !!

Congratulations to Barstool for having the courage to post what he has posted. Confirms what everyone knows about AW racing , even though some punters refuse to believe what's in front of their faces. I would love to wake up in the morning and see on the news that every AW track has been blown up(with nobody injured of course).

I did not say it was important and I never asked.

Barstool posted his opinion which is fair enough but it doesnt mean he is right with what he thinks.

fair enough maluk01.

I might be completly wrong dealer but I have just posted what I believe is the truth and  I am comfortable with that.

BB. Two questions: Please explain why Pearl Nation went out from a best priced 7/2 overnight to 14/1 on track on the 30th of March.

Also tell me why Mick Appleby sent a worrier like Pearl Nation down to the post early?

We had some good times together it was just a shame it was soured in the end from our point of view.

i am not saying you are wrong, just saying that its down to you guys and imo its wrong for others to assume anything without all the facts.

Regarding the horse in the March race, if he was 7/2 that was a mental price even if you didn't take into account that the horse had been to Dubai and had a problem. It was a competitive race and the winner has mentioned above was two on the bounce over CD and had been clocking good times. I certainly didn't have any interest whatsoever in backing Pearl to give her a stone. I thought he had a lot on his plate and he genuinely ran better than I expected he would.
Am not going to comment on the horse going down to post early. I can't help think you are overplaying it's importance, Chris but I wasn't there and I haven't spoken to Mick about it at any time. It is a shame you feel the experience was soured, he is/was a great horse to own and I maintain that Mick has handled him superbly to improve him two stone and win six races with him.

barstool, Chris Dixon has just texted me to say he is still up and he would like to speak to you to discuss your allegations in person. He added that he is both taken aback and disappointed with your accusations, especially as you have never mentioned any of this to him prevously. So if you could give him a ring I am sure he would appreciate it.

Here comes the threat of a gagging order!

That race was a track record would've needed wings to beat moon river,the price 7/2 must've been a joke both the other Appleby horses the winner and philba were justifiably infront of it in the betting,the run behind westwood hoe philba and highland colori had the beating of it just briefly looking at the race.Don't know about the 12/1 but there wasn't a strong reason to think it was going to win that race,looked an 8/1+ shot and that's without looking at some of the other runners..

Obviously this is somewhat of a private manner and not really any business of me or many on here, Though I can see Barstool's point that his horse didn't seem to be ran on its merits (If his conversation with MA is accurate that if the horse broke well it would be handy) - The horse may have been handicapped badly but because of the drift compared to the gamble on the winner, from the same stable who was given a forward ride which tends to bode well at Southwell, I think I'd be pretty peeved too!

"its wrong for others to assume anything without all the facts." Nobody tells BB to pipe down in so many situations where he obviously "doesn't know all the facts"

It's highly convenient that all the drifts or backs can be "explained"/justified by anyone inside the tent pissing out. But as soon as the the roles are reversed..

I would have been most interested to read responses from people connected to a few horses where I have questioned the integrity of rides in the past, ProSniper. Not that what I think about other races/horses is of much relevance here anyway.

Maybe they had the same "legit" excuses as you put forward? Perhaps the game isn't as dirty as we all believe? Let's all have a w@nk at the beautiful purity of the "sport of kings"

Mar 23, 2017 -- 6:24PM, ProSniper wrote:

"its wrong for others to assume anything without all the facts." Nobody tells BB to pipe down in so many situations where he obviously "doesn't know all the facts" It's highly convenient that all the drifts or backs can be "explained"/justified by anyone inside the tent pissing out. But as soon as the the roles are reversed..

I don't know BB but sems a decent person. But as we all know there are the same few others on here who only really post to defend the indefensible(poor,crooked rides etc) and we have to ask ourselves why? Again kudos to Barstool for his post.

"I don't know BB but sems a decent person" I'm sure he is. Barney Curley seems a decent person as well but it didn't stop him ripping the hole out the game.

I think that's the first time I have ever been likened to Barney Curley. This is all getting a bit strange. The implication that I am ripping the hole out of the game is an odd one also. If you want to accuse people of ripping the hole out of the game then perhaps you should be focusing your attention on bookmakers who will not a lay a bet, have wilfully relegated the sport in favour of electronic machines designed to rip people off and give them no chance of winning and have taken a stranglehold on racing to the extent where the sport cannot control its own fixture list. If making a profit from gambling is ripping the hole out of the game then at least I have put a very substantial back into the sport from ownership.

His reply " it was Midge, he thought he always went down early"

It would appear you and your horse got used barstool

why is going down early a big deal? thought it was only done when a horse is prone to getting edgy in paddock...dont really see a negative to going down early

I blame them Islamics.

Mar 24, 2017 -- 8:28AM, duncan idaho wrote:

why is going down early a big deal? thought it was only done when a horse is prone to getting edgy in paddock...dont really see a negative to going down early

It is when the horse has a documented issue with going down early and this has been discussed with the trainer

A "documented issue" that none of the other owners had a clue existed until yesterday.

barton bank - do you watch your horses go down to the start and behind the stalls?

since the snobs ended banded racing, many people have missed out on ownership

I don't go on the majority of occasions when the horses run. Doesn't the enthralling debate about banded racing have its own thread?

banded racing was good fun and a good first step into ownership

once again, the snobs killed it off

If you can afford a banded horse, you can afford a horse that runs in 0-50 and 0-55 grade.

BB, maybe the bookies wouldn't be so reluctant to lay a decent bet on the horses if there wasn't so much cheating going on in the game. It amazes me that the Curley's and the Fretwell's of this world have the audacity to whinge about struggling to get their bets on after obviously and continually fixing the odds in their favour to an obscene level. 

Incidentally, Curley used to convince himself he was giving plenty "back" to the game. I also understand he did/does a ton of charity work. Whether he did this purely because he is indeed a decent man? or because he had a conscience that was eating away at him? I guess only he and his closest would know for sure.

I think you are incorrect in your suggestion that bookies would lay decent bets to anyone who knows what they are doing, even if every runner in every race run on their merits and they knew with complete confidence that is the case. It isn't just about limiting insiders. The bookmakers refusal to lay bets to largely unconnected winning punters, some losing punters who had the audacity to try and take a favourable price (hiding behind the accusation that these people were "arbing") on numerous occasions. Exchange betting flourished partly because of the above.
I can't comment on Barney Curley's motivation but I own horses as a hobby. I don't do it to give something back to the game and never claimed that is my motivation. Nonetheless, racing is better off (albeit slightly) with my financial input as an owner than it would be without it.

Just read this thread. Well done on your winner BB. I would have given up trying to explain myself long before this. I smell a tad of jealousy on the thread.

Thanks, stewarty.

"even if every runner in every race run on their merits and they knew with complete confidence that is the case." They've never been given the chance - and never will be as long as the game is littered with so many cheats. Stew, what exactly are people supposed to be jealous of? I just wish people would OWN what they do. Otherwise they can come across as sheer hypocrites.

BB.

I take on board what you said about the trainer improving him, he did a great job and the horse always looked fantastic. I can understand the prep run before Dubai and I would not have wanted him to have a hard race either. I can also understand that he may well have been injured at Chelmsford and then needed a long rest to recover. Likewise you running him in a claimer in his comeback if you felt that is his level. The run after at Wolverhamton was disappointig but again you can make a case for the distance being too far.

What I can't accept and what has not been explained is how come Pearl Nation went from tissue favourite out to 12/1 while Moon River went from 7/1 to 11/4 fav.
It takes a lot of money to do that. Also, what would Moon Rivers opening price have been if Pearl Nation had not been in the race? Not as juicy that is for sure.

Why did he go to the start early? I don't know, you don't know, Mick Appleby does'nt know (so he blames the Jockey). Any one who saw him at the start at Catterick when he went down early would never have let him do so again, he was a nervous wreck awash with sweat and ran an awful race. We where aghast at Southwell when we saw him sent to the post so soon, thankfully this time he was ok.

Finally why was he ridden in the manner he was for the first time in this race? Mullen clearly had the option to take the front line yet he pulled him back so far he had no chance after two furlongs.

I will leave it at that now and wont post again but I will never be convinced otherwise that some people had it right off at our expense that day. This is the real reason we sold him. We did not want to make a fuss at the time and thought it best to walk away. I know CD has been trying to call me, Eileen got a message last night. If he wants to defend what happened then post it on here.

And if they were given the chance they wouldn't lay bets.
They don't lay bets to anyone with a clue on any sport.
Is every sport bent?

where there is money involved, there is always dodgy dealings going on,

it would be naive to believe otherwise !

Cant see alot wrong with the race behind Westward Hoe, Mullen is a smart jockey and had ridden a good race imo before the horse didnt have the pace to take the gaps when they were there.

The Moon River race however sticks out as a 'jockeys race' as they're often labelled here (not that Pearl Nation would have gotten close to Moon River imo); The sale of the horse to America story lends itself well to the theory.

Barstool, it takes nothing like as much money as you think it does to shorten a horse or lengthen one. Particularly when they are running in what is not the main meeting of the day.I think that most formbook punters would have fancied the winner to be honest. The prices were almost certainly miles off in the first place and you could find many, many examples of much larger drifts. I am glad to see that you now believe the horse was actually injured and it wasn't a smokescreen as your earlier accusations suggested. Moon River would have been shorter initially if Pearl Nation was not in the race, not longer. How could it possibly be otherwise.
I think Andrew Mullen riding Pearl Nation might well have been influential in the betting forecasts/very early prices but Curtis had ridden the winner for both her previous two wins and I have no idea whether or not Midge had the choice of which horse to ride.

As I have said several times, I had no idea the horse had gone to the start early or whether he has ever gone to the start early before or since. I am far from convinced it would have made much difference to his performance and in my honest opinion and I would be fairly sure the view of most handicappers, the horse ran very near his best on the day behind Moon River. Watching the race again I would say that Midge did his best. The horse was drawn hard on the inside which is also a factor that will have contributed to his weakness in the betting and his priority was to get him off the slow inside rail which he accomplished. He got stuck into the horse in the straight and he just wasn't good enough in a warmish race off a career high mark. That's all there is to it as far as I am concerned. If you want to continue to believe the horse was stopped, then that is up to you. I don't agree with you and I think the statement that he has "never tried to win a race in England" is simply not true.

Chris Dixon doesn't post on here. He would like to speak to you though.

"A jockeys race" where the winner broke the course record! Have a word with yourself, Jet. Seriously.

Hadn't noticed that BB, I dont bet at Southwell so just looked at the race and saw the apparent easy lead upside its stablemate. Should have looked through the formbook before I started typing

Interesting read this. General consensus is the trainer knows the time of day so can you confirm whether or not the 2 worked together leading up to this race?

Sorry, that question is to Barton Bank

No, because I didn't ask. Sorry.

Abareeq another easy winner to come out of the Lincoln Trial

Another winner out of the Nimr race there...

Well done flukes, great minds!

Snap!

Barton Bank congrats on Supersta win only highlight for me in a poor week, but whats the relevance of it breaking the course record to it being a jockeys race.If the main fancies jocks are all on the fav and not doing their best  then the fact its good enough to break the course record makes  it surely more plausible.If you dont believe such things happen then thats fair enough, good luck with your runners.

One can assume Craig Buckingham asked

Hardly a surprise Moon River broke the course record , the course was riding very fast and it was as good a race as you ever get at Southwell. For the standard of race it was only an average speed figure.

Have seen a few jockeys races. They generally (but not always) involve a horse being given a soft lead and an easy time. As a result the horse making the running is conserving energy. You don't break a course record without going a good gallop. I think the fact that the horse broke the course record shows the others couldn't beat it but not that they didn't try to.

Everton, maybe he did. Or maybe he backed her because she was The most likely answer would have been that they hadn't worked together but I can't verify that as I didn't ask the question myself. I also don't know whether Craig backed the winner or not. Nor do I particularly care.

barton bank

thank you for answering the questions

barstool. I think you have got the whole Pearl Nation episode wrong.
Sounds like to me you had decided to have £500 on the horse at the wrong time and because it didn't come off you are looking to blame someone.
Just my view taking everything into consideration.
Good luck going forward. ;)

what? And he waited a year before finding the person to blame?