Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Having been sceptical for a few years that the trainers championship is flawed I dont think we need any further proof of this fact. The question is, what if anything will be done to correct the system ?
To be crowned Champion Trainer should not be based on "total prize money" as it currently is, because it encourages mediocrity in that it includes prize money for placed horses and does not solely reward a trainer for winning, which surely is what any championship is about ?
To be crowned a champion, you should be winning.
Which is something that we have just seen Willie Mullins do very little of.
In Mullins, we have a winner by default, not because he has won the most races , nor won the most 1st place prize money, but someone who has become champion trainer by the fact that he has won an awful lot of place money for 2nd , 3rd and 4th places in valuable races in what is obviously a flawed system.
Surely any system which pushes a trainer into running 10 horses in a top race with the sole aim of picking up some place money can only be considered bad for the sport as it turns off both general public and racing fans alike.
This year , you have Dan Skelton winning 179 races and Willie Mullins winning a paltry 35 in comparison.
Who is the champion, the person who trains the most winners over the season surely ? It is a far harder task to go and win 179 races keeping your horses fit and running well day after day throughout a long season rather than having most of the field in valuable races. Mullins over the course of the season had just 183 runners.
But by block entries as we saw in the triumph hurdle or the National, where he had most of the field, he becomes champion trainer as a result of coming 2nd , 3rd etc based on the fact he has a huge stable with battalions of horses available for every race.
The sports rulers say they are concerned that the top trainers under each code are becoming "super powers" and the smaller trainers numbers are declining, but that is not surprising when the Trainers Championship actually encouraging that to happen because it is promoting and rewarding a trainer for running 10 horses in televised races by including placed prize money in a championship competition to find supposedly the "best" trainer.
Seeing 10 runners in a race from one stable is a major turn off for the general viewing public and racing fans alike.
Does the Championship reflect the top trainer in the UK ?
No, not under its current guise, it just shows who has the largest number of high quality horses in their yard, and that they aren't winning races, they are just trying to gain as many places as possible and any championship should be about winning .
We all remember Martin Pipe winning over 243 in a season, or over 200 many times, but total prize money ? Not a scoobys, and when you look down history , numbers of winners are a number that is relevant and can be compared against, whereas prize money totals are meaningless as they are incomparable due to inflation.
So I'd be interested to hear what anyone else's opinions are and whether you think the championship should be very simply based on the number of winners ?
.
To be crowned Champion Trainer should not be based on "total prize money" as it currently is, because it encourages mediocrity in that it includes prize money for placed horses and does not solely reward a trainer for winning, which surely is what any championship is about ?
To be crowned a champion, you should be winning.
Which is something that we have just seen Willie Mullins do very little of.
In Mullins, we have a winner by default, not because he has won the most races , nor won the most 1st place prize money, but someone who has become champion trainer by the fact that he has won an awful lot of place money for 2nd , 3rd and 4th places in valuable races in what is obviously a flawed system.
Surely any system which pushes a trainer into running 10 horses in a top race with the sole aim of picking up some place money can only be considered bad for the sport as it turns off both general public and racing fans alike.
This year , you have Dan Skelton winning 179 races and Willie Mullins winning a paltry 35 in comparison.
Who is the champion, the person who trains the most winners over the season surely ? It is a far harder task to go and win 179 races keeping your horses fit and running well day after day throughout a long season rather than having most of the field in valuable races. Mullins over the course of the season had just 183 runners.
But by block entries as we saw in the triumph hurdle or the National, where he had most of the field, he becomes champion trainer as a result of coming 2nd , 3rd etc based on the fact he has a huge stable with battalions of horses available for every race.
The sports rulers say they are concerned that the top trainers under each code are becoming "super powers" and the smaller trainers numbers are declining, but that is not surprising when the Trainers Championship actually encouraging that to happen because it is promoting and rewarding a trainer for running 10 horses in televised races by including placed prize money in a championship competition to find supposedly the "best" trainer.
Seeing 10 runners in a race from one stable is a major turn off for the general viewing public and racing fans alike.
Does the Championship reflect the top trainer in the UK ?
No, not under its current guise, it just shows who has the largest number of high quality horses in their yard, and that they aren't winning races, they are just trying to gain as many places as possible and any championship should be about winning .
We all remember Martin Pipe winning over 243 in a season, or over 200 many times, but total prize money ? Not a scoobys, and when you look down history , numbers of winners are a number that is relevant and can be compared against, whereas prize money totals are meaningless as they are incomparable due to inflation.
So I'd be interested to hear what anyone else's opinions are and whether you think the championship should be very simply based on the number of winners ?
.
Show More
If you are going to go on pure winners then that in itself will only encourage even more mediocrity, if winning a novice hurdle at Newbury equates to winning one at say Sedgefield then that is not equitable.
You could go by Wins and places in graded races on a points system which will mean only the best horses in the best races count towards the championship.
You could have two Championships, total prizemoney won in only Graded races and one for all races,Graded championship taking precedent, this would stop all the running of horses all over the country in the last few weeks of the season scraping for a few grand.
Of course basing the C/ship on graded races only will still mainly concentrate the title on Chelt/Aintree but that happens mostly now.
As an aside Skelton only won three Grade one races with 2 horses,Mullins won 14 Grade ones with 12 horses.
The answer is in my opinion just enjoy a brilliant trainer plying his trade in our lifetime,good luck to him and his family.
You could go by Wins and places in graded races on a points system which will mean only the best horses in the best races count towards the championship.
You could have two Championships, total prizemoney won in only Graded races and one for all races,Graded championship taking precedent, this would stop all the running of horses all over the country in the last few weeks of the season scraping for a few grand.
Of course basing the C/ship on graded races only will still mainly concentrate the title on Chelt/Aintree but that happens mostly now.
As an aside Skelton only won three Grade one races with 2 horses,Mullins won 14 Grade ones with 12 horses.
The answer is in my opinion just enjoy a brilliant trainer plying his trade in our lifetime,good luck to him and his family.
The only way to make winners only feasible would be if worked out pro rata to amount of runners thereby negating the block entries and would open up the championship rather than the small pool of possible contenders we have now.
I was hoping I could give you Sir Henry Cecil's view on it.
I came across an interview posted on twitter, which was from 1993 after King's Theatre had just won the Racing Post Trophy. Cecil at the time was in a tussle for the trainers' championship with Richard Hannon, and the same argument (winners vs prize money) was being had even back then, with John Francome fairly aggressive with his line of questioning.
Alas, I can't find it now
I came across an interview posted on twitter, which was from 1993 after King's Theatre had just won the Racing Post Trophy. Cecil at the time was in a tussle for the trainers' championship with Richard Hannon, and the same argument (winners vs prize money) was being had even back then, with John Francome fairly aggressive with his line of questioning.
Alas, I can't find it now
That's a shame George as his opinion would have certainly benn worth listening to. Actually I'd rate both of them very highly.
Interestingly , most trainers acknowledge you could train a Derby winner out of an allotment shed. If it's got the ability , there are plenty of trainers who can get them fit enough.
It's recognised as far harder to win run of the mill races with bad horses. That takes skill.
Interestingly , most trainers acknowledge you could train a Derby winner out of an allotment shed. If it's got the ability , there are plenty of trainers who can get them fit enough.
It's recognised as far harder to win run of the mill races with bad horses. That takes skill.
Trouble is you can win run of the mill races with good horses as well, i remember Dickinson doing it back in the day, Graded horses running up sequences in lowly nothern novice hurdles.
Trainers championships always comes down to two dominant trainers in the end, same with jockeys.
As for block entries i would somewhat agree if it was the same owner with maybe 5/6 entries as Gigginstown and Elliot do but Mullins had 10 entries and 10 different owners.
As for block entries i would somewhat agree if it was the same owner with maybe 5/6 entries as Gigginstown and Elliot do but Mullins had 10 entries and 10 different owners.
I agree.
But I doubt the powers that be will give a hoot. The publicity they have gathered from this manufactured event will have pleased them no end.
I do not know what the answer is though. If you want to stop Mullins winning it I guess the simplest thing is to make the season January to December. He wont be sending his horses over while he is concentrating on Leopardstown over christmas.
But I doubt the powers that be will give a hoot. The publicity they have gathered from this manufactured event will have pleased them no end.
I do not know what the answer is though. If you want to stop Mullins winning it I guess the simplest thing is to make the season January to December. He wont be sending his horses over while he is concentrating on Leopardstown over christmas.
Yes cropsick, there is nothing wrong in my opinion with graded horses winning novice hurdles . Every horse is entitled to it's novice season and some who dont cut it over hurdles initially and go over fences before winning their novice hurdles are fully entitled to come back and take their chance over hurdles at a later stage in their career.
You say they run up a sequence but I would dispute that as penalties are cumulative so there is a limit to how many they are physically able to win.
Those sort of numbers wouldn't affect a trainers chamionship.
You say they run up a sequence but I would dispute that as penalties are cumulative so there is a limit to how many they are physically able to win.
Those sort of numbers wouldn't affect a trainers chamionship.
Everything runs it course in time oneten and i am sure W Mullins will be the same, we can all find things that are boring in H/racing wether that was C/Hill or beating up vastly inferior horses at times or even a Skelton/Nicholls nag turning up at say Taunton at 1/10 to breeze home,we cant be chopping and changing rules just to stop Trainers or horses dominating a certain period in time.
Are we really that bothered about who wins the trainers title?, i am more concerned about finding a winner whoever trains it
one thing for sure Mullins/ Skelton couldnt give a rats a**e if i never back a winner again.
Are we really that bothered about who wins the trainers title?, i am more concerned about finding a winner whoever trains it
one thing for sure Mullins/ Skelton couldnt give a rats a**e if i never back a winner again.
The nature of the sport is not conducive to identifying a "champion" trainer. I'm actually surprised that it appears to matter to Mullins.
What other recognition does a trainer get other than a monthly cheque? Why is it different from a football manager winning the Premier League?
Oh steerforth, I beg to differ !
Everything about horse racing centres about winning. Coming second, you might as well finish last.
And I mean everything.
From foals, walking , breaking yards, breeze ups, all everyone involved wants to know the same thing - which is the best one in your care.
When they breeze, which breezes the fastest, to the very purpose of a race - the winner takes the glory. The owner the plaudits and the prize money and the punters collect their bets.
The winning most horses go to stud for a small ransom.
So when you say "The nature of the sport is not conducive to identifying a "champion" trainer. I'm actually surprised that it appears to matter to Mullins"
That is exactly what motivates all the Mullins' and every trainer in the world to get out of bed in the morning. All trying to have their horses run round in a circle faster than everyone else and win more races than anyone else.
Every jockey riding and every trainer bar maybe a small permit holder competes and dreams in the hope they might one day win the derby / be champion trainer / jockey as it is in reaching the pinnacle of a sport that a sportsman achieves their goal.
Think olympics etc.
They are as people, competitive to the extreme and being number one is their whole psyche.
Everything about horse racing centres about winning. Coming second, you might as well finish last.
And I mean everything.
From foals, walking , breaking yards, breeze ups, all everyone involved wants to know the same thing - which is the best one in your care.
When they breeze, which breezes the fastest, to the very purpose of a race - the winner takes the glory. The owner the plaudits and the prize money and the punters collect their bets.
The winning most horses go to stud for a small ransom.
So when you say "The nature of the sport is not conducive to identifying a "champion" trainer. I'm actually surprised that it appears to matter to Mullins"
That is exactly what motivates all the Mullins' and every trainer in the world to get out of bed in the morning. All trying to have their horses run round in a circle faster than everyone else and win more races than anyone else.
Every jockey riding and every trainer bar maybe a small permit holder competes and dreams in the hope they might one day win the derby / be champion trainer / jockey as it is in reaching the pinnacle of a sport that a sportsman achieves their goal.
Think olympics etc.
They are as people, competitive to the extreme and being number one is their whole psyche.
Fair enough Oneten, but the "not conducive" point, is the crux. The basic premise of this thread is the difficulty in defining criteria for declaring a "champion". Everyone can acknowledge that Mullins is unsurpassd in his domination and is peerless in what he does, without needing the epithet, and my surprise is that he needs one. Set a different parameter and someone else is "champion" - whereas an Olympic champion can only mean one thing.
whereas an Olympic champion can only mean one thing.
they were on the best drugs?
they were on the best drugs?
It's no more flawed than it ever has been. Some people just don't like the result. I mentioned on another thread about the flat title which has been won with far fewer winners than Mullins. No good reason to change it. It reflects well that a top class trainer has won it. I would be more concerned about jockey's titles which similarly to the flat code are now going to journeyman jocks. Titles should if possible reflect the best within a sport.
Mullins is a great trainer but having him come over at the end of each season with his brigade is not edifying and makes a mockery of the championship as well as underlining the depths British NH racing has fallen to.
I doubt things will change.
I doubt things will change.
The use of prize money is the real issue here. The disproportionate sums of money available for winning the top 8-10 races, flat or jumps compared to the rest means that winning all of those could be enough to be champion. Willie Mullins was not even in the top 40 in the GB list before Cheltenham and on number of winners he was outside the top 20 on Saturday. I suppose the other criterion is percentage of wins but that is very hollow as a trainer who wanted to win could keep running good horses in low value races and never move them up to higher quality ones.
Is it because the trainer is from a different Country? Is Skelton the top trainer in the UK in your opinion?
Sageform, yes I agree with your point as it does seem "disproportionate sums of money available for winning the top 8-10 races, flat or jumps compared to the rest means that winning all of those could be enough to be champion".
MJK, No its not because the trainer is from another country.
I raised the topic as a point of interest to discuss, as it is a strange fact that someone can be crowned Champion Trainer on the strength of picking up a lot of placed prize money from finishing 2nd and 3rd and winning only a few races.
Is Skelton the top trainer in the UK, that depends on how you judge 'Top Trainer' but numerically speaking, he is.
MJK, No its not because the trainer is from another country.
I raised the topic as a point of interest to discuss, as it is a strange fact that someone can be crowned Champion Trainer on the strength of picking up a lot of placed prize money from finishing 2nd and 3rd and winning only a few races.
Is Skelton the top trainer in the UK, that depends on how you judge 'Top Trainer' but numerically speaking, he is.
If Skelton isn't seen as top UK trainer but is top trainer numerically then surely that should be seen as flawed as well?
MJK, I didn't say Skelton 'isn't seen as top UK trainer'.
I just said numerically speaking he is.
Your question is subjective, as it depends how it is judged.
I would have thought that judging a championship numerically would be a fairer way of reaching the conclusion , rather than it being decided by 4 or 5 horses finishing in the places in valuable races.
Hence the discussion.
I just said numerically speaking he is.
Your question is subjective, as it depends how it is judged.
I would have thought that judging a championship numerically would be a fairer way of reaching the conclusion , rather than it being decided by 4 or 5 horses finishing in the places in valuable races.
Hence the discussion.
MJK - How would you judge the championship ? Who would you say is the top trainer in the UK ?
Leif, Thats so funny ! Brilliant. 
The photo didnt show up earlier , I just had a grey box, otherwise I would have commented sooner.
The photo didnt show up earlier , I just had a grey box, otherwise I would have commented sooner.
I can't see the leif picture either.
It is very hard to decide how to judge trainer and jockey merit. Did Sean Bowen win because he rode the most winners or because he had the most rides which led to that total? (Gavin Sheehan is way ahead on profit from a level stake). Ditto Dan Skelton who had nearly 400 more runners than the next highest, Fergal O'Brien. The best percentage was Olly Murphy with 25% and of course he had the assistance of Bowen. He was fifth on prize money but top on profit to a level stake of the top 50. The best profit was Ewan Whillans with £100 plus. Should he get the prize? The Trainer competition has been run under the same rules for a while and it seems unwise to change it imo.
It is very hard to decide how to judge trainer and jockey merit. Did Sean Bowen win because he rode the most winners or because he had the most rides which led to that total? (Gavin Sheehan is way ahead on profit from a level stake). Ditto Dan Skelton who had nearly 400 more runners than the next highest, Fergal O'Brien. The best percentage was Olly Murphy with 25% and of course he had the assistance of Bowen. He was fifth on prize money but top on profit to a level stake of the top 50. The best profit was Ewan Whillans with £100 plus. Should he get the prize? The Trainer competition has been run under the same rules for a while and it seems unwise to change it imo.
Apr 28, 2025 -- 11:49AM, oneten wrote:
MJK - How would you judge the championship
Im mot a fan of these 'championships' as some, psrticularly jockeys, just aren't bothered and are better than the actual champion in a lot of cases down the years. As for UK trainers I find them muvh of a muchness, though Henderson should clearly have won more big races with the stable of horses he has. I would say a few other UK trainers would have done just that if they'd the same horses to train.
If there is a talking point it's whether major handicaps should have such big prize money. It worked back in the day when there wasn't a million condition races for the Graded horses to run in, but now you get ordinary fields running for big money.
I like the present system ie it's determined by the prize money of a trainer. Just because Mr Mullins nicked it 2x does not mean it is an unfair system and needs rejigging.
Mr Skelton is the champion trainer in the UK; Mr Mullins is the overall champion trainer in the British Isles.
Mr Skelton is the champion trainer in the UK; Mr Mullins is the overall champion trainer in the British Isles.
it's not a talking point, we hear nothing from may until aintree and then it's industry hyped,
this thread makes it sound like it's a doable thing winning champion trainer, i think it's just 5 men that have won it since 1988, five ...
fair play to mullins for unlocking a way to break the monopoly, he's a class trainer, poss the greatest any of us will see in a lifetime, he knows if he can win the national he's got a fair shot at it
people moaning about him coming over, you're seeing really good horses competing, look at the performance on saturday of iet, jonbon slammed and yet would have won a dance had it not met a properly good animal, we are being gifted genius
this thread makes it sound like it's a doable thing winning champion trainer, i think it's just 5 men that have won it since 1988, five ...
fair play to mullins for unlocking a way to break the monopoly, he's a class trainer, poss the greatest any of us will see in a lifetime, he knows if he can win the national he's got a fair shot at it
people moaning about him coming over, you're seeing really good horses competing, look at the performance on saturday of iet, jonbon slammed and yet would have won a dance had it not met a properly good animal, we are being gifted genius
simples really Skelton.nichols, need more grade one horses who can act at chelt,the door was open Mullins won none of ch hu,ch chase.stayers or gold cup this yr
Anybody know the total prize money won, for placed horses only, for Mullins and Skelton? I cant find it but would be surprised if Skelton did not win more place money than Mullins.
i think from memory wm had around 2.1m win money meaning he had approx 1.4m place
skelton was circa 1.8m win money leaving around 1.5m place
sorry it's roughly, i worked it out while drinking, i never checked the numbers in detail i couldn't be bothered
skelton was circa 1.8m win money leaving around 1.5m place
sorry it's roughly, i worked it out while drinking, i never checked the numbers in detail i couldn't be bothered
Thanks elise, if that is correct then the opening post is just a waste of space.
Has any trainer ever posted on here and let the forum know?
If Willie is such a "genius" then why did it take him so long to dominate the sport as he does today ?
He started training in 1988 and it wasn't until some 20 years later that he won just his second trainers championship in Ireland.
About that time of course he had begun to be sent expensive recruits purchased by O'Leary and Ricci whilst other trainers were making do with relative scraps due to the financial crash that was occurring. A very decent trainer being sent very good horses suddenly equals success, who'd have thought it ?
As Skelton only started training in 2013 maybe there's hope for him yet to be similarly revered by the forum cognoscenti in years to come !
He started training in 1988 and it wasn't until some 20 years later that he won just his second trainers championship in Ireland.
About that time of course he had begun to be sent expensive recruits purchased by O'Leary and Ricci whilst other trainers were making do with relative scraps due to the financial crash that was occurring. A very decent trainer being sent very good horses suddenly equals success, who'd have thought it ?
As Skelton only started training in 2013 maybe there's hope for him yet to be similarly revered by the forum cognoscenti in years to come !
Mullins was always good but, unlike Skelton,Nicholls or Henderson, he started off from scratch.Started with 6-7 horses and 4 or 5 winners in his first year and his graph has continued to rise year after year ever since and he has become a genius along the way. The best trainer of a horse I have seen
Skelton "only" had 27 winners in his first season and that has risen year by year to 179 in 24/25. Maybe he will become a genius if some mega rich owners help him out.
Willie had 54 horses by the mid 90s and was doing well with what he had at his disposal without pulling up too many trees . Back in 1982/83 Michael Dickinson had 55 horses in his stable and ended up that season with the first 5 in the Gold Cup, a record 12 winners on Boxing Day and an incredible 46% strike rate overall, if Willie is a genius then what does that make Michael ?
Willie had 54 horses by the mid 90s and was doing well with what he had at his disposal without pulling up too many trees . Back in 1982/83 Michael Dickinson had 55 horses in his stable and ended up that season with the first 5 in the Gold Cup, a record 12 winners on Boxing Day and an incredible 46% strike rate overall, if Willie is a genius then what does that make Michael ?
I remember that Boxing Day,silver buck and Bregawn,returning odds of ,no offers.no sp returned.
In the days when they couldn’t cover all the meetings.
Because of the blower(voice only info in shops).they couldn’t announce everything has their was no gaps in airtime to tell you.
Still think the press printed all the race cards,but there was 5 main meetings and then just the runners listed on 3/4 pages of endless racing.was even before teletext.
Max payout tiny from the minor meetings.
In the days when they couldn’t cover all the meetings.
Because of the blower(voice only info in shops).they couldn’t announce everything has their was no gaps in airtime to tell you.
Still think the press printed all the race cards,but there was 5 main meetings and then just the runners listed on 3/4 pages of endless racing.was even before teletext.
Max payout tiny from the minor meetings.
The reason the trainers title is done on prize money,is because,that’s their job,to get prize money for owners,the jockeys is based on winners,cos that’s their job,to get winners.
First time visor,
Sorry but what a load of made up tosh..
Saying " Willie mullins started off from scratch unlike Nicholls Henderson and Skelton."
You really couldn't make a more innacurate statement if you tried.
Firstly Mullins did not start off from scratch, his father was a trainer and he took over his yard.
Nicholls and Skelton both built and started their own yards from scratch with zero horses.
Sorry but what a load of made up tosh..
Saying " Willie mullins started off from scratch unlike Nicholls Henderson and Skelton."
You really couldn't make a more innacurate statement if you tried.
Firstly Mullins did not start off from scratch, his father was a trainer and he took over his yard.
Nicholls and Skelton both built and started their own yards from scratch with zero horses.
cuth - if its the trainers job to get the most prize money for their owners, why did Willie only run two horses in the Irish National which was worth three times as much as the Bet365 where he ran ten ?!
Dixie,that’s a question his owners might want to ask him,but they might have been happy to let him throw their dart at his chance of winning the trainers title.
Be interesting when they get the bill for entry fees,transport etc.
Presume he’d discussed it with them first,maybe he offered to pay the fees himself.its totally up to their relationship with him.
Be interesting when they get the bill for entry fees,transport etc.
Presume he’d discussed it with them first,maybe he offered to pay the fees himself.its totally up to their relationship with him.
cuth - think you may have got your wires crossed yourself regarding that boxing day in 1982, Silver Buck finished 3rd in The King George behind the brilliant Wayward Lad and Bregawn didn't run at all that day because of injury so its no wonder there was no offers or sp on him !
Dickinson was unreal but he couldn't keep it going when he switched to the flat.
Mullins is out on his own. His ability to think outside the box. How he campaigns his horses. How he gets them spot on on the biggest days.Nobody else comes close. Gavin Cromwell looks like he's about to become the best of the rest but the gap is huge.
Mullins is out on his own. His ability to think outside the box. How he campaigns his horses. How he gets them spot on on the biggest days.Nobody else comes close. Gavin Cromwell looks like he's about to become the best of the rest but the gap is huge.
Dixie,maybe.but defo remember a Boxing Day,loads of dickinsons,might of been year before or after.was giving a general feel of the industry at the time.
first time - but thats exactly how Dickinson operated as well, he would likely have dominated the NH scene for many years had he decided to not make his ill fated switch to the flat. Of course he has since proved that he could train on the flat as well albeit in the USA.
Who do the fans want to win the trainers championship.
A trainer who runs loads of horses at every meeting ,a lot low grade all year.
Or
A trainer who picks a lot of top races and wins a few.
The all year round trainer seems more deserving.
It could be possible that a trainer never wins a race but finishes 2,3,4 in every big race could win the championship.
A trainer who runs loads of horses at every meeting ,a lot low grade all year.
Or
A trainer who picks a lot of top races and wins a few.
The all year round trainer seems more deserving.
It could be possible that a trainer never wins a race but finishes 2,3,4 in every big race could win the championship.
Dickinson going to USA.
Very strange,your at the top of your game,then just up sticks.maybe he believed more money in the move.plus he invented tapeta.
Must of been happy and fulfilled,so just must of been money.
Very strange,your at the top of your game,then just up sticks.maybe he believed more money in the move.plus he invented tapeta.
Must of been happy and fulfilled,so just must of been money.
I believe MD has been very happy in the USA cuth, lives in a fantastic location and says he has never regretted the move. I was gutted when he gave up the NH training after such unbelievable success, maybe he thought he had done it all and wanted a new challenge?
Looking back through the archives i found a copy of the Mirror racing pages from boxing day 82 (was actually the 27th Dec as 26th was a Sunday), in his preview Newsboy wrote "Boxing Day 1982 could well go down in racing history as a Michael Dickinson benefit" - how right he was ! There were plenty of runners at every track that day, the exception being Kempton's feature races, 5 in the Christmas hurdle and 6 in the King George, so not many penalty kicks.
Looking back through the archives i found a copy of the Mirror racing pages from boxing day 82 (was actually the 27th Dec as 26th was a Sunday), in his preview Newsboy wrote "Boxing Day 1982 could well go down in racing history as a Michael Dickinson benefit" - how right he was ! There were plenty of runners at every track that day, the exception being Kempton's feature races, 5 in the Christmas hurdle and 6 in the King George, so not many penalty kicks.
he struggled at manton, suffered personally and wasn't in a good place and i had that from someone who worked closely with him
1988–89 - Martin Pipe
1989–90 - Martin Pipe
1990–91 - Martin Pipe
1991–92 - Martin Pipe
1992–93 - Martin Pipe
1993–94 - David Nicholson
1994–95 - David Nicholson
1995–96 - Martin Pipe
1996–97 - Martin Pipe
1997–98 - Martin Pipe
1998–99 - Martin Pipe
1999–00 - Martin Pipe
2000–01 - Martin Pipe
2001–02 - Martin Pipe
2002–03 - Martin Pipe
2003–04 - Martin Pipe
2004–05 - Martin Pipe
2005–06 - Paul Nicholls
2006–07 - Paul Nicholls
2007–08 - Paul Nicholls
2008–09 - Paul Nicholls
2009–10 - Paul Nicholls
2010–11 - Paul Nicholls
2011–12 - Paul Nicholls
2012–13 - Nicky Henderson
2013–14 - Paul Nicholls
2014–15 - Paul Nicholls
2015–16 - Paul Nicholls
2016–17 - Nicky Henderson
2017–18 - Nicky Henderson
2018–19 - Paul Nicholls
2019–20 - Nicky Henderson
2020–21 - Paul Nicholls
2021–22 - Paul Nicholls
2022–23 - Paul Nicholls
2023–24 - Willie Mullins
2024–25 - Willie Mullins
wiki, sry but i think the context of what people are debating is pointless, it's a closed shop
1989–90 - Martin Pipe
1990–91 - Martin Pipe
1991–92 - Martin Pipe
1992–93 - Martin Pipe
1993–94 - David Nicholson
1994–95 - David Nicholson
1995–96 - Martin Pipe
1996–97 - Martin Pipe
1997–98 - Martin Pipe
1998–99 - Martin Pipe
1999–00 - Martin Pipe
2000–01 - Martin Pipe
2001–02 - Martin Pipe
2002–03 - Martin Pipe
2003–04 - Martin Pipe
2004–05 - Martin Pipe
2005–06 - Paul Nicholls
2006–07 - Paul Nicholls
2007–08 - Paul Nicholls
2008–09 - Paul Nicholls
2009–10 - Paul Nicholls
2010–11 - Paul Nicholls
2011–12 - Paul Nicholls
2012–13 - Nicky Henderson
2013–14 - Paul Nicholls
2014–15 - Paul Nicholls
2015–16 - Paul Nicholls
2016–17 - Nicky Henderson
2017–18 - Nicky Henderson
2018–19 - Paul Nicholls
2019–20 - Nicky Henderson
2020–21 - Paul Nicholls
2021–22 - Paul Nicholls
2022–23 - Paul Nicholls
2023–24 - Willie Mullins
2024–25 - Willie Mullins
wiki, sry but i think the context of what people are debating is pointless, it's a closed shop
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539