Fair play to them,don't think anyone could begrudge them that with all the money they put into the sport.

Cheap flights from MoL to boot, class act indeed.

Sorry 19

Statistics could be interpreted any way one wishes to reinforce one's opinion or proposition similarly, Economics. Nevertheless, in the Grand National Gigginstown had 7 runners: winner (TR), 10th (VL 2nd attempt) and 12th (ATP) with 1F and 3PU; winner was 4/1 fav. From these stats one can confidently infer/deduce a max of 3 was more than sufficient from the entity esp with a hotpot in their charge.

Gigginstown, next year please no VL, General Principle, Dounikos, Monbeg Notorious or Blow By Blow; the former (VL) proven not good enough; the rest out of their depth and preventing others from participation to ensure some fairness and restore sportsmanship in the race.

Indeed, look at President Trump. But for his money his present role would be zilch; old fashioned, abrasive, inarticulate, narcissistic, undiplomatic, lacking integrity, and obnoxious. He's also a bully.

^^
If you meant his money I'd not want that either; it was not his to begin with, I believe, according to various independent media information outlets. I'd not like to be President Trump for everything in the world, or in my next life, why? He'll leave no respectable legacy post his Presidency; the man is vile despite being the President Of The United States of America (only the United States of America, no other developed nation), I firmly believe.

Pipe having 10 is one thing but numerous horses wearing the same colours is something else, he's entitled of course but it doesn't look good.

I bet the wider viewing public that we are constantly in fear of would have been rather aggrieved if they'd landed on one of the gigginstown runners, trying to spot it in the race.

think 11 ran

'workrider', I think you are missing he point.

Gigginstown as horse owner is not in question, but their dominance in a prestigious race like the Grand National is. I firmly believe no owner should be allowed more than 3 runners, to restore fairness, competitiveness and sportsmanship in the race especially so if the owner also has the short price fav too.

Prices paid for any horse is only to the benefit of the vendor and/or breeder, not buyer. If the likes of Gigginstown and Ricci, to name two were not around lower prices of horses will no doubt benefit the genuine (sport) owners; it will also attract new comers into the game as a level playing field is more likely.

As for the trainers you've quoted that would not have a negative impact on how the horses are trained either, I firmly believe, as competition would not decreased (more likely to increase) as competition will be more opened.

MJK, regards Dickinson's charges in the Gold Cup: He had the best horses in a non-handicap but Grade 1 Blue Riband race. For isntance, if Aiden or any outfit were to run their best horses (not those pace-setter/riding shotgun for the number 1 runner) in the Derby or Oaks I'd be all for it. But, not having 7 runners like Gigginstown had in the Grand National with only one making the frame; 4 either fell or did not complete the race. These (badly) over-rans were depriving those horses that were just outside the permitted 40 runners in the race.

Gigginstown dishing out the caps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwWmRiS3G0Q

They've won plenty of big staying chases with what was perceived as one of the outsiders from their multiple entry. I don't think even Gordon Elliott is so good that he knew only the winner would be there at the finish out of all his/Gigginstowns.

MJK, when races took part in Ireland (mainly/only).

'foxy', sponsorship = promotion for Ryanair and publicity for the O'Learys. The same reason why the likes of Ruoert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, Conrad Black, etc, bought/retained newspapers when they were lost-making? Newspapers act as their owners' mouth-pieces.

At the end of the day, a level playing field is good for all involved eg trainer/owner/punter (big and small) even in business to promote innovation and competition, and suppress complacency and domination by only a select few eg amazon, facebook, google, microsoft (in tech);  utilities; telecoms; airlines; etc.

they didn't do anything wrong, the rules allowed them to enter, the horses were qualified and got in on their OR, whether people see it unsporting or team tactics is a personal view

when/if the bha modify the conditions/rules of entry we'll have another group arguing it's restrictive and top owners that support the sport are being driven out/penalised/or their horses stopped from valid entry

until then, it is what it is

Well my final word on this matter is the more gigginstown horses that run over here the better I would love to see 3 or 4 in the king George.

Impossible you no doubt have a very high opinion of yourself, well done. Do you honestly think I care what you think of my opinion? As for the subject at hand you haven't answered the question, why is it ok for them to have multiple entries 'when races took part in Ireland' as you said, and not in the UK? When have you complained about that? Why just complain when the race is in the UK? Also shouldn't then the 100/1 shots in the race be deemed to have taken spots from 'better' horses. What about them? As for moving the goalposts you've moved several by trying to sidestep the question with pretend outrage and vocal diarrhoea. By all accounts do me a favour and put me on your 'ignore' list with all the other less intellectual people than yourself, or should I say take the ball home when you're not getting your own way.

'workrider', I'm fully aware Gigginstown won the National with the hottest hotpot for the race ever, and that was why I reiterated several times prior they did not need to run 7 - 3 would have been accepted by most. As it turned out only Tiger Roll (hotpot and fav) was the winner and placed horse, with the rest (4) no where eg either poorly unplaced (completed), pulled-up or fell. Some of these may have a higher (past) rating, but it did not take away the fact Gigginstown had 7 runners in a 40 runner limit prestigious/famous race leaving quite a few just missing out.

I'm not saying those just outside the 40 would have finished infront of the two that completed the race, but they could very possibly have done better than the others that fell or pulled-up as the 2nd Magic Of Light showed eg rated lower that the 2 of Gigginstown that completed.

But the gist of the debate was whether it was sporting and/or fair to other entities Gigginstown entered 9 (2 sold prior) with a hotpot like Tiger Roll. I'd not even have minded if it was a non-handicap Grade 1 Gold Cup at Cheltenham as it was the case with Michael Dickinson (5), and I believe his had different owners.

Sad to hear Brendan Powell (personable gentleman) has handed-in his training licence (great ride on Rhyme 'N' Reason). But, I'm afraid that is the risk of being a horse trainer where quantity is paramount to be feasible, and I wish him well.

Nevertheless, a prestigious handicap race like the famous National must not be dominated by any one owner running 7, I firmly believe; I could accept in Grade 1 races provided no un-sportsmanship tactical riding by their stablemates in the race.

On a different subject I see mark johnson had 2/3rds of the field in a race at ponty today.

Spot on kemo
Obviously works o k for sheikh mohammed in dubai
Fact is Ireland realises why its so important as a sport
It must really pain the u k establishment
Seeing the sport of kings or queens
Dominated by paddy and mo
Perhaps brexit might get them off their r s
who said "Nation of moaners" jeremy kyle ?

So what if he does deliberately swamp the race

To prevent others taking part

HE DOES NOT MAKE THE RULES

THE BHA IS WHO YOU SHOULD BE MOANING ABOUT !

People moaning that he has too many runners in the Grand National and not any in the Scottish National .

Just sounds like a anti Elliott and O'Leary thread now .

How many runners did Trevor Hemmings have in the race . One fell at the first as well , surely he could've seen in hindsight it would fall and allow someone else to have a runner in the race .