Lydia Hislop's Double Standards Re Binocular & New Approach

[Posts: 3764Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

I went to the Newbury Cheltenham Preview where Henderson's assistant was on the panel Tom Symonds.

He said AP had come back from working Binocular that day grinning from ear to ear. (Which is highly unusual). Tom gave everyone no doubt that they considered Binocular back to his best.

[Posts: 1616Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 14:57]

I went to the Newbury Cheltenham Preview where Henderson's assistant was on the panel Tom Symonds.

He said AP had come back from working Binocular that day grinning from ear to ear. (Which is highly unusual). Tom gave everyone no doubt that they considered Binocular back to his best.

As unusual as no market support on the day.

[Posts: 1455Joined: 20 May 2009, 03:40]

Because it's the punters that pay.

[Posts: 1616Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 14:57]

Because it's the punters that pay.

So theoretically the punters who pay are the punters who didnt support Binocular after the trainer said he was training well, and will win a champion hurdle 'one day, he just didn't know when'. So if they didnt listen to him when he gave good advice, how can the punters moan when he said he was out(bad advice). Selective criticism from some perhaps ?

[Posts: 16Joined: 16 Mar 2010, 00:19]

Both horses were categorically stated as non runners by their trainers, both horses ran.

As the Cheltenham races are 'early closers', perhaps final decs should be made earlier?
NH rules are 24 hr decs and as has been pointed out, a horse can sustain a knock and be over it within 48 hrs.
Maybe NJH should have said he would leave the decision till decs time, or said nothing.

[Posts: 1455Joined: 20 May 2009, 03:40]

So the punter who laid at 999s for £26 had the option of letting it run or backing him for £2,900 at SP.

Top stuff.

He shouldn't have even been in the position today to make any comments about Binocular. I mean ffs, every single comment he made is full of bullshit.

Before - "'one day (he'll win a Champion Hurdle), (I) just don't know when'"

After - "Henderson said: "It hasn't been an easy passage this year. When he was beaten last year, we said he'd come back and AP (McCoy) said he would win it."

----

Before - "'We have unfortunately decided to put him away for the season to ensure he can begin next term as normal and 100 per cent for a full campaign, which we obviously hope will lead us back to the Champion Hurdle.'"

After - ""We were actually nine-tenths taking him out and we said he wouldn't run."

[Posts: 1192Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 06:19]

Gingertipster wrote....AP had come back from working Binocular that day grinning from ear to ear...

Hypothetical Scenario: Tony's mobile rings whilst he and Binocular are out on the gallops:-

Tony: "Hello, is that you JP, how you doing?"
JP: "Couldn't be better son, how's he working today?"
Tony: "Spot on JP, we've got him fully tuned-up."
JP: "Ah, I knew Nicky would do the biz. Everything's gone to plan and there's buckets of money down all over the place. It's been a long time in the making but I think we've pulled it off. I even took some mug's 999/1 last night would you believe it?"
Tony: "Brilliant JP! Tell you what, I can't wait to get into this training lark when I retire. What's that saying of yours JP? You know the one that goes...you can fool some of the people some of the time...
JP: "...but if you're a horse trainer you can fool them all of the time. Yes, it's a good one that Tony. Anyway, see you at Chelters. The champagne's already on ice. Bye.

[Posts: 262Joined: 12 Oct 2009, 11:47]

...Hislop called all punters effected by that "definitive" statement, "thieves" and deserving of everything that they got. That statement never once mentioned. Clearly different rules for different trainers.



Paul Fitzgerald

Unless we have evidence to the contrary are the layers at the big prices anymore "thieves" (unsuccessful ones as well) than the backers?
Similar to share prices that fluctuate on rumour and comment so do horse's prices.
Maybe the guardians of our great sport could be doing more to avoid the "thieving" by automatically withdrawing a horse if connections say he wont run, after all why would connections have objections to such a rule?
Hope they're going to be asking Henderson a quiet question or two on this occasion.

[Posts: 1192Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 06:19]

Eddiecase wrote..Similar to share prices that fluctuate on rumour and comment

Perhaps we need the same legislation that applies to the Stock Exchange where if there is evidence of Insider Trading. Maybe then we'd get some of these culprits locked up out of harm's way.
I'd even go so far as to say that all trainers and stable staff should only be allowed to bet at the same odds that the vast majority of the public have available to them on the day of a race. Why should they be the ones that always take the icing off the cake? We, Joe Public, keep them in business but they think it's all a good laugh when they gobble up the odds on their good things long before we get to pick up the crumbs. Also, whilst they're planning and enacting their 'preparation' for the 'big kill' it's we who suffer the losses on their horses not running to full capacity. Have they no scruples or are they just in it for themselves?
In fact I'd even go further and suggest that trainers and stable staff are obliged to 'invest' only through a 'blind trust', similar to those holding shares for politicians. That way they would have no idea when their money was down and would have to always run their horses on their merits.
Cheers,
K
p.s. I'm not bitter, I haven't lost at Chelt., but I just resent these smug upper class twits walking over the rest of us. Enough said, I'm off my high horse now.

[Posts: 1782Joined: 09 Oct 2002, 16:18]

Going back to the original post, I mentioned this on the Champion Hurdle thread, I totally agree with Cav.

JohnJ

[Posts: 610Joined: 05 Jan 2002, 00:17Location: Newbury]

Maybe there's just too much attention devoted by the media to Cheltenham and therefore its too easy for trainers to apparently contradict themselves and/or potentially mislead people ? Too many stable tours, too many ante post plunges, too many trainer interviews and too many preview nights ? Ten years ago, Henderson would never have felt the need to issue any bulletin. The horse would have been left entered until a week before the race; at which point Henderson would have either withdrawn him or confirmed the intention to run. We'd have never have got 999/1. It's as though punters have to know about every gallop and every slight piece of news from within a stable. Just in-case we might be missing something. Now we've got to Cheltenham, I am suffering Festival fatigue. At least with the flat there's a more even spread of Championship races over the summer. We seem to have been building to Cheltenham since about September last year.

[Posts: 1782Joined: 09 Oct 2002, 16:18]

Not sure if people really understand the meaning of this thread, it is entitled "The Double Standards of Lydia Hislop".

JohnJ

[Posts: 122Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 22:17Location: Ayrshire]

Anyone who thinks NickyHenderson did anything wrong is a being silly or as the say in France a fookin idiot Sharup Carv and write about moving hurdles it's more up your street.......geez your a moaning bastid at times

Exactly well said

Im also in the Henderson camp over this.Binocular simply proved what a select few already knew.....he is the best hurdler in the British isles.(him against a fully fit hurricane fly may be quite a sight!)

[Posts: 6006Joined: 06 Mar 2003, 16:25Location: Halifax, England]

Well worth getting in touch with RUK on one of the Wednesday night programmes for Lydia's response to this. Judged by her comments on the BHA handicappers blog page she's not shy of shouting up when she feels her views have been misintrepeted. It would be very good to have her views on this issue cleared up.

Good post Cav.

[Posts: 37Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 13:10]

Dear Paul Fitzgerald

When addressing what happened with Binocular on Racing UK, I was aware that the New Approach case might be deemed to be a precedent and recalled fully the stance I took in The Times on that occasion. I even discussed how I believed the two cases differed when broadcasting with Jonathan Neesom from Newbury on 5 March, the day that Binocular’s re-emergence as a likely Champion Hurdle contender appeared in the newspapers. However, I am happy to elaborate in response to the points you’ve raised.
I think there are significant differences in the two cases, in terms of what happened to each horse and in terms of the statements made by the trainers. However, what is entirely the same in both cases is my view of those who might potentially have sought to gain an advantage by inside information during these episodes. Two different, but related, arguments should not be elided to create what I think is a false conclusion.
The only thing preventing New Approach from running in the Derby was Jim Bolger’s word that he would not. The only thing that changed from the moment that Bolger said New Approach would not run to the moment he said that the horse would participate was Bolger’s own mind. The horse was not injured, nor suspected to be, and was running to a level of form that justified him being the likeliest favourite for the Derby, were he to run. However, he was definitively said to have another target.
Binocular only ever had one target, but had run below his (then) perceived capabilities in three starts when Nicky Henderson made the announcement that you quoted. Henderson stated that he had been advised that a muscular problem was in evidence (“We have taken a lot of advice this week, short of consulting a psychiatrist, and it appears he has a muscular problem behind.” Racing Post, 17 Feb ). It was on the basis of that initial advice that Henderson said the horse was ruled out for the season. On 4 March (printed in 5 March newspapers), he announced that Binocular might yet run in the Champion Hurdle, as a result of what the Post described as the horse “being given a clean bill of health following a body scan and other exhaustive veterinary tests”. According to Henderson, he was told he had an ill horse and then was told that the initial diagnosis had not withstood closer scrutiny. This would be an entirely legitimate basis for a change of plan for a horse, albeit a dramatic one, in my opinion.
Further detail about what happened between those two statements by Henderson is indeed worthy of some interrogation. I understand that Greg Wood, of The Guardian, pursued this line of questioning at the post-race press conference at Cheltenham and I believe you can view that on the sportinglife website. You know that I was broadcasting on the live RUK programme at the time and so could not attend. I am interested by what was said and pleased that Greg was present to address the subject, just as I had previously taken the opportunity (along with Dave Yates of The Mirror) to ask Bolger what I believed to be pertinent questions at the post-Derby press conference. I want to have a proper look at that Cheltenham webcast and resultant comment in the next few days, now that the duties of live broadcasting are complete.
What I said about a certain type of punter on RUK on Tuesday is a slightly different, albeit related, point. I said (to the best of my memory – I don’t have the transcript) that those who had posted big prices about Binocular winning the Champion Hurdle deserved those who had latterly matched their lay bets because each was an example of one trying to nick money from another. At odds wildly disproportionate to a horse’s chance, each side of the transaction may believe they know more than those who match them about the fact/chance of a horse running (or else its chances of winning, not penetrable in the form). Some will be taking an honest flyer, but they should know the risks and expect no sympathy. However, potentially, one side of the transaction may in actuality know – for a fact – more than the person who matches them. In both cases – that of New Approach and Binocular – the potential was there for people trying to gain a pecuniary advantage from others whom they perceived, or knew, to be gullible and who were not armed with the full facts. I have no sympathy for either side in either case. On a point of integrity within sport, however, I asked Paul Struthers, of the British Horseracing Authority, on Wednesday morning whether they will be investigating this episode as a matter of procedure. He said that preliminary checks had been made, but further checks would follow.
Not all punters fall into this category. I had some sympathy with those who had backed other horses for the Derby on the basis of Bolger’s seemingly unequivocal word that New Approach would not run because the horse had an alternative target. These punters had the goalposts moved on their bets for no tangible reason. However, admittedly, all bets are a risk. The sticking point in integrity terms comes when one side of the bet thinks they’re taking a calculated risk and the other side knows that they actually have no hope, or a great deal less hope than the odds suggest.
Again, this is a separate issue from the reasons why, outlined in The Times article you quoted, there is a burden of responsibility on trainers – and other connections – to acknowledge that punters (along with owners) underpin the existing finances of the sport of racing and to treat their concerns with due respect. It is this issue of transparency and accountability, which I believe has a holistic impact on punters and their faith in the sport of racing, that I was arguing in that Times article. It was my assertion that Jim Bolger did not fulfil his duty of care in this matter as I believe trainers should. I did indeed write: "A bad situation was made immeasurably worse by how definitively Bolger delivered his mutable statements". You could argue that perhaps Henderson should have been less unequivocal in his initial statements – that he should have realised there was a possibility the initial advice might be flawed – but on the basis of the information in the public domain, I believe that would be a harsh stance to take. Once again, the key difference is that there was never any problem with New Approach or the calibre of his form; he was merely said, definitively, to have an alternative target. Conversely, had Henderson not announced that tests were being conducted on Binocular, it could be argued that he would have failed in his duty of care towards the betting public. It is probably worth pointing out that Henderson was consistent both at the point of saying that the horse would not run again this season, in February, and again in the post-race press conference, last Tuesday, in stating that the horse was always “sound”.
I believe my point of view on these two episodes is consistent because there are key differences in the detail. Surely it makes sense to judge these matters on a case-by-case basis? No doubt when I construct or revisit an argument, there will occasionally be (and surely have been) flaws in my logic or inconsistencies that I have not fully perceived – I am a human being, after all – but I don’t think there are in this case.
However, it is quite another degree of accusation to accuse me of failed integrity. Therefore, while I respect you for having the straightforwardness to write your comments under your own name, I found the following accusation offensive: “Like I said they pick their victims carefully these media lions(ess's). Must be no gravy 'round Coolcullen way.” Unlike the original point that you argued, with evidence and to which I have replied at length, this is just a wild and entirely unfair slight. I rebut it.

Regards

Lydia Hislop

PS
Wallace-no7. You are utterly wrong (and more than a little absurd) to assert: “She doesn't like Irish Horse winning her races or Irish trainers disrespecting her races. She has complete contempt for Aidan O Brien and the Coolmore operation.” Your points, in their ranging degree of silliness, are entirely inaccurate and completely misrepresent me.

Goldikova. You wrote: “I hear the sound of a coin about to be dropped... Maybe she is like all the other sell out merchants on tv, and shows preferential treatment towards the person who is alot easier to get a tv interview out of ?” This is another wild and offensive accusation. What you have written is utterly untrue. In fact, if you had an iota of fact at your disposal, what you wrote is so far from reality it’s almost laughable. Almost.