Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
One Nation
04 Apr 19 21:41
Joined:
Date Joined: 25 Apr 07
| Topic/replies: 1,425 | Blogger: One Nation's blog
7 runners in the National.

Had 9 declared, but since declaration stage he's sold two exposed goats trading at 100-1 and 170-1 to two lunatics for £170k and £165k respectively.

All rather unedifying and not in the spirit of things, but wouldn't expect any better from Michael O'Leary.

And the buyers of the two rags need sectioning for their own good.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 125
By:
RichardHughes
When: 04 Apr 19 22:09
And the buyers of the two rags need sectioning for their own good.
By:
RichardHughes
When: 04 Apr 19 22:14
Calling out for 2 people to be sectioned while thinking you're better than them. I tell you now these 2 people have done better in life than you my friend. If they can afford to blow 170,000 on a day out is a clear sign that they have millions just laying out.
By:
workrider
When: 04 Apr 19 22:15
I find you post very sad indeed, the guy spends millions on racing buying the best. He has won everything worth winning in the game and you slag him off.Oh by the way what exactly do you mean by unedifying and not in the spirit of things, maybe you'd be happy if they had no runners and it was a cosy little old boys handicap as it once was, times have changed in case you haven't noticed, time you adjusted as well.
By:
Callisto-moon
When: 04 Apr 19 22:38
about time they banned this race.
By:
impossible123
When: 05 Apr 19 00:34
I firmly believe 7 runners from the same owner, and 13 in all from the same trainer are unsporting, monopolistic and not in the spirit of this game or race - a trainer or owner certainly does not need so many bullets to win a race; 3 is sufficiently adequate, I believe, unless there is a game plan to ensure one of the 7 or 13 has a maximum chance of winning.

Apart from Tiger Roll the price of their next best is at least 20 or worse. And that is absurd.
By:
foxy
When: 05 Apr 19 06:13
so impossible what do you say to the owners of mala beach troytown chase winner owners been around racing for a long time,the owners of jury duty winner of the grade one american grand national,a horse that beat both shattered love and presenting percy the same season those two horses went on to win at the cheltenham festival,noble endeavour winner of a very strong handicap at leopardstown of a mark of 143,the gigginstown owned horses general principle irish national winner,dounikos less than two lengths behind monalee and al bhoum photo in a grade one at leopardstown,monbeg notorious a very easy winner of the 2018 thyestes chase,the grand national is a much better race nowadays and all these horses will be an asset to the race ,as elliott said himself yesterday he was not born with a silver spoon, if he has the horse good enough to qualify for the race what is the problem ?
By:
irishone
When: 05 Apr 19 08:22
The problem is impossible
Doesnt like anything irish
By:
One Nation
When: 05 Apr 19 09:26
I stand by my comments. Nothing remotely 'anti Irish' about them for goodness sake - if the Rooneys had 9 runners and had sold off 2 I'd make the same point (and as an aside, it amuses me that they have the gall to complain about the safety at Cheltenham but have no problem running horses in the riskiest race in the calendar).

If you accept that 9 from the same ownership is fine, do you think there should be any limit on the number from the same owner/stable? If not, then you'd have no problem with the entire field being in the same ownership. That'd be a wonderful spectacle wouldn't it, but oh, "times have changed", whatever that sententious rot means.

O'Leary has the red hot favourite, and has won it before. Does he really need to have 9 in the race, stopping other people having the opportunity of a runner. And don't tell me he's sold the two rags out of the goodness of his heart to give other people a chance. He had a great festival in 2018 but his interviews were utterly classless and sneering, boasting after one race that his winner was the 'worst in the yard'.

As for the purchasers of the two rags, if that's how they want to blow £170k good luck to them, obviously more money than sense, just to say "I've got a runner in the National". But it's pretty tacky - like buying a football club the night before a cup final. Surely the fun is in the journey, not taking a shortcut a couple of days before.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 05 Apr 19 09:30
irishone - maybe I haven't read enough of your posts, but the ones I have read seem to have a thing about everyone being anti Irish if they disagree with you?
By:
cyclops
When: 05 Apr 19 09:31
I'd agree one nation. It's become quite a routine now, the sale of horses at vastly inflated prices before the National. It worked for the Thompsons with Party Politics but few others have ever been sighted in the race itself.

Not how I'd choose to spend a spare 170k (or 300k in Blaklion's case).

Not sure you should take O'Leary's comments so seriously. I think his interviews are entertaining and far more interesting than the standard owner interview. Pessimist in chief, but with tongue firmly in cheek most of the time.
By:
asparagus
When: 05 Apr 19 09:54
In an ideal world I agree that the amount of runners an owner and trainer should have in the National or indeed any big race with a maximum field should be limited. The problem is that from an owner perspective it would easily be flouted by using partnerships etc to slightly change the ownership. From a trainer perspective it's a little easier to patrol but still not totally straightforward.
By:
portmanpark
When: 05 Apr 19 10:06
Trainer or owner should have as many runners as they want.
By:
One Nation
When: 05 Apr 19 10:17
I agree asparagus, any knee-jerk reaction rules would probably easily be flouted. Which is why it needs a bit of 'self policing' or sportsmanship by owners/trainers by not taking the p1ss.
By:
in hell
When: 05 Apr 19 10:28
Surely if you own horses , you can enter as many as you want in race .

"sportsmanship" .....what does that even mean FFS
By:
One Nation
When: 05 Apr 19 10:32
No one is suggesting that it's against the rules. As I point out, a single owner could have all forty runners. Do you think that would be a good thing?

If you're alien to the concept of sportsmanship there's probably little point explaining it.
By:
Ibrahima Sonko
When: 05 Apr 19 10:52
Silly fred, you just want the best/highest rated horses in the race. If they are owned/trained by one person then well done to them.
By:
One Nation
When: 05 Apr 19 11:06
Silly, glib response. It's a handicap, not the Gold cup. You want a mix of horses, not merely the highest rated.

The race becomes a non-spectacle if everything's in the same colours. There are also obvious integrity issues if one trainer/owner monopolises an entire race.
By:
mikeeboy
When: 05 Apr 19 11:20
I wouldn't mind seeing a trainer & owner limit. Although some owners are part of multiple groups so that could be grey area.

As for the 2 horses sold, if either of them win, the trainer interview post race would be interesting!!!
By:
workrider
When: 05 Apr 19 13:12
One Nation, Martin Pipe had 10 runners in 2002 never a word said against him!
By:
buddeliea
When: 05 Apr 19 13:26
Blimey, that's some memory you have workrider!!
Remembering the reaction(or lack of it)17 years ago!!!!.
By:
buddeliea
When: 05 Apr 19 13:37
Personally I do not want to see half the field with one trainer and a load with one owner.
That's what could happen the way Gigginstown are going!!
Not sure how it would be done, but I do hope something is done to prevent it.

Maybe as part of the entry conditions they just put a maximum for both owner and trainer.

We would still have same amount of runners, but most important imo.....the sportsmanship of the race would be as it should be for the Grand National.
By:
lapsy pa
When: 05 Apr 19 14:26
Good point with Martin Pipe WR, matter of fact that was "worse" as any ould thing could win then,agree with Foxy,they are all contenders in their own right. The way the race is nowadays is the handicap isn't much more than a stone between the 40 runners, 142 squeezes in, Gordon has a plethora of similiar rated horses simply because the main owners modus operandi is a gold cup winner.

How many British trainers would have say 6 horses that are rated 142+ that could be considered for the national? Doubt there are any.
By:
impossible123
When: 05 Apr 19 15:38
Sorry, 7 from the SAME owner in the Grand National, a race where winners of its trials would have to rely upon defections from non-qualifiers but horses on past ratings (and possibly on the downgrade) with no mechanism to accommodate winners of trials or improvers post weight allocation cut-off date does not sound equitable or sporting to me.

However, if others think it's ok and justified an owner can run as many as he/she likes (bills payer) then it's their prerogative, but I certainly does not share their view; horse racing is a SPORT, and that's paramount!
By:
jimeen
When: 05 Apr 19 19:56
The reason people never said anything about Pipe having ten runners in the National is because he never had .
By:
penzance
When: 05 Apr 19 20:00
if the trainer has horses,the owner aswell,in the h'cap
elegible to run,so be it,no rules broken.
By:
isleham
When: 05 Apr 19 22:15
Pay millions for potential staying chasers but don't allow them to run in the richest race of the year..bonkers
By:
One Nation
When: 06 Apr 19 00:07
Millions?

Someone's been on the sauce.
By:
isleham
When: 06 Apr 19 00:32
Pointer went for 440k at Aintree.. doesn't take many of those to make seven figures plus nation
By:
isleham
When: 06 Apr 19 00:48
Just for your edification I meant an owner's total spend not the price of one horse and three guinesses at Aintree hardly constitutes being on the sauce!!! You need to get out more because you're like king canute with your thinking
By:
the old nanny ;-)
When: 06 Apr 19 01:43
IMP spot on ..
By:
foxy
When: 06 Apr 19 05:35
impossible 00.34 april 5th

apart from tiger roll the price of there next best is 20/1 or worse and that is absurd.

what price was rule the world when he won the race for gigginstown ?
By:
One Nation
When: 06 Apr 19 08:36
I was teasing Isleham.

Also, at no point have I suggested banning anyone from running their horses, and of course you can make a case that every one of his runners is entitled to take its chance - I'm simply of the view it is unsporting and not really in the spirit of things to swamp the field and account for over 20% of it (and considerably worse in the case of the Irish National last year).
By:
impossible123
When: 06 Apr 19 11:34
I always knew a poster would dig up form to be contrarian to suit eg Rule The World. All very well, but at least not be just selective about his price, but other factors eg his owner Gigginstown only had 3 runners (but not the fav in Last Samurai who was 8/1), and Elliot 1.

However, this year not only Tiger Roll is the reigning champion, but could start the shortest, at 5/1 fav; Gigginstown next best is about 28/1, 50/1, 66/1, 80/1, etc, but significantly more on the Exchange.

Horse Racing is a sport, but it will not be long if an owner and/or trainer fielded 13 (11) in a field of 40. Imagine if there were only 20 or 10 runners, and the same number ran from these entities.
By:
elise
When: 06 Apr 19 11:45
jimeen • April 5, 2019 7:56 PM BST

The reason people never said anything about Pipe having ten runners in the National is because he never had .


??
By:
elise
When: 06 Apr 19 11:47
wr posted 2002, think it was 2001
By:
exactaman
When: 06 Apr 19 12:03
The fact that there is prize money all the way down to 10th spot is surely a major factor here.
£561,000 1st
£211,000 2nd
£105,000 3rd
£52,000 4th
£26, 000 5th

Certainly not peanuts even for 5th...!!

Michael Dickinson had 5 of the 11 runners in the 1983 Gold Cup and look what happened there....!!
By:
workrider
When: 06 Apr 19 12:13
Correct exactman, it was hailed as the greatest training feat ever! of course he was British...Laugh
By:
impossible123
When: 06 Apr 19 12:36
The Gold Cup is a non-handicap and Michael Dickinson's charges were there on merit eg ran in the respectable/recognised trials and performed superbly, and accordingly.

Look at the Scottish Premiership: In the past one could be assured it was either a one-or-two horse race ie Celtic or Rangers unless either or both of these teams were rebuilding, and/or unrelated external factors come into play eg financial impropriety with Rangers.
By:
kemo sabe
When: 06 Apr 19 13:07
of course they can do and will do what they wish but i know in ireland the common punter and racegoer is getting increaseingly frustrated with races with just a few runners and most of them from these connections , especially the bigger races , they already get at the races a lot of stick if their shorter ones get punted and lose beaten by the second or third string , I wouldnt punt any of theirs in similar races , i think they simply throw lots of darts at the board hoping one comes up , Its probebly good business , but is it sporting im not so sure ,,, Mind you for me its similar to the big trainers haveing Hunter runners ,  Cant they leave a bit of gravy for the lower orders to dip their bread in ,,, Tis greed greed ,,, and Paul nics is the worst culprit by far ,, ive had less of an opinion of him since he entered this  sector , and i just cant see why top trainers of gold cups need this part of grass roots racing except for greed
Page 1 of 4  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com