forum.sports-pro.co.uk A discussion forum devoted to people who want to talk about sports and sports betting! People without a sense of humour need not apply!!
I`ve just read on Channel 4`s Teletext pages that Dessie Hughes is giving Strong Flow a rest now before he returns to training next season. That`s good to hear, I thought Dessie Hughes would do right by the horse in the end, Sue
Jenny, I must apologize, I missed you`re earlier post where you gave this information, in much more detail than me I might add. And there was me thinking I was hot off the press with this news! Sue
I`ve just read on Channel 4`s Teletext pages that Dessie Hughes is giving Strong Flow a rest now before he returns to training next season. That`s good to hear, I thought Dessie Hughes would do right by the horse in the end, Sue
yes rowan, so did i
including running him when and if it is right to do so
throughout this thread i have been consistent. let the connections decide if the horse can run. if the trainer was a less than reputable soul then i would be concerned, but dessie hughes is a proper horseman and kows his stuff. he also knows more about this horse than everyone on this board put together and i object to the condemnation of his intentions b those who do not know the full story. nothing else
that is all
well, as you're going to confuse me with Sue...
I'm afraid my experience means I don't believe that connections always do the *best * thing for a horse. I'm sure it's usually owners rather than trainers (e.g Hemmings, Wilson, Carter) but then owners pay the bills. Trainers have ambitions. My condemnation as such - as you have illustrated in the quote elsewhere - is of Marshall, who made a big thing about why he was giving up all bar one horse. I'm sure Hughes isn't greatly upset that the horse won't be going for those races.
You see it all the time, whether it's just running a horse on the wrong ground or wrong trip or more. Running a horse as a pacemaker, so it winds up always beaten when its tried its hardest, can break an animals heart.
Nicholls himself, in an interview a few days before that mad Sandown meeting, admitted he had made mistakes that have led to the death of a few horses. "In 1999 the season ran to the end of May and I was in front until the last day or so when I ran out of ammunition. I was trying hard to win it and some kind owners encouraged me to go after a couple of novice chases. We had a good horse called Estate Agent and we lost him on the track doing that. I ran one or two more who should have been out in the field rather than racing. I won't do that again. "
Maybe that (and Azertyuiop a few days later, who really only ran because of the trainer's championship) made him more cautious, and that's why when he felt Strong Flow wasn't right he told the owner to retire him. He felt the same about Azertyuiop. He had Strong Flow a lot longer that Hughes has had him, and he felt it was wrong.
Accuse me of being close-minded if you like but as a big fan of the horse I've been having the debate with myself since his first run back in 2005.
We clearly have immoveable opposing views. Ultimately the right thing has happened this season and I'm sure with more time the right thing will happen next season. In the meantime we should just agree to disagree.
Geordie, as Rowan has accurately illustrated with the example of Paul Nicholls, trainers don't always get it right. Therefore, Hughes may not NECESSARILY have got it right in this case (he probably has, but there can - and should - be an element of doubt if the other evidence supports it). OK, none of us has a license. That does not prevent us from commenting on a trainer or owner's (more particularly owners') decisions if it seems something worth commenting on.
In this case I think it is. Otherwise, we will all be pulling our forelocks to every trainer and owner and never questioning their decisions - which would be very unhealthy and indeed in my opinion has anyway been going on for far too long. Racing is a public entertainment. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that the way it is run should be under public scrutiny. I frankly don't buy the argument that "the public doesnt know enough". Not all of it does, of course, but why should that be allowed to stifle the reasonable opinions of those that do or have a reasoned case?
I know I am coming at this from a slightly different direction than Rowan because I do not have the detailed knowledge of the horses' career. But I think there's an important principle involved that shouldn't be let slip by.
Agree to disagree? I can agree on that! _________________ UNEXPECTED WINNER 2009 FLAT 10 TO FOLLOW COMPETITION!
there is a hell of a difference betwee accpting that people don't always get it right [but you havent given me a dessie hughes mistake to thinl about] and assuming that the horses owners and trainer have got it wrong which is where this started from
i thought hearing that string flow was fit enough to be making a coeback was good news. rowan has assumed throughout that the horse is being mistreated and that it is wrong.
closed minds are not the same as fair critics _________________ Geordie_R
"A should of known there mum was buying banana's"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sue
