Trainer Interviews on USO

fogwils Wrote:
-

---

> I am not talking from my pocket as I am a small
> player and can afford my bets and do not complain
> when I do not win which is more often than not.
> But this so called Transparency is getting to me.
>
> Matchett said on USO that it was too short for
> Time Signal, also that he would need the run so it
> did not stand a chance, not even a small place
> chance. What happens it wins like a good thing and
> I guess a lot of Punters leave it out on what the
> Trainer said, I did and it cost me the Quart.
>
> Everything he said was Bullsh-t. All I can say
> that either he is a bloody fool and does not the
> wellbeing of his horses or that he is a
> manipulator, keeping the chances of his Horses to
> himself, maybe for a a slightly bigger pay out.
> Thanks for nothing Mr MATCHETT.
>
> How do the Clan diffentiate between the truth and
> the Bullsh-t

Mr. Matchett is not the most charitable guy around - punters should know that by now.

Refer to previous periods when his stable has been very hot, having two or three winners a meeting. In previews or post race interviews he plays down the chances of his real runners. Result? They get heavily backed and they arrive home like soldiers one after the other, so there's no question of him being a fool, just uncharitable I think. Perhaps his owners prefer it that way, but either way, it's up to him if he wants to share or not. It does beg the question though, why does he agree to go on the preview show? I have no problem if you believe your only allegiance is to your owners and yourself, but then just decline to go on the show. If you are only going to deceive the public though, rather excuse yourself.

The real fools are Telly Track who have not worked out yet who genuinely adds some value, and who is just playing them.

Unfortunately this has become part of the broader "form", i.e.just as you consider a horse's chances by it's previous form, so too you learn who's comments to ignore - Matchett is right up there with a few choice others, who on past performance, are best ignored altogether, because they're not likely to give you ice in winter.

It's not fair to tarnish all with the same brush though - Geoff Woodruff on the same show, tipped his 66/1 charge in the 3rd race to run a much improved race and it duly ran second. Still paid R 8.60 a place. Gentleman.

Justin Snaith, Vaughn Marshall, Dennis Drier different class!

This topic has been debated ad nauseam,when we as punters expect transparency from trainers jockeys owners etc but when they are off the mark then they are slated and said to have hidden agenda's useless judges etc etc etc...The fact that Time Signal (who comes from a punting stable) opened at 7/1 and started 16/1 (paid R4.30 a place) I'm sure is proof enough that it was not fancied and obviously "came up" on them.. I never saw the interview but even if he had said that the horse had a chance i would have been hard pressed to include it in my bets when it is taken into account that his full brother (Bright Light) never even attempted sprinting, was placed over 1800m and won a 1600m race and the half brother (French Pearl) was unsighted over the 1200m trip but won twice over 2400m and ran 2nd in the 3600m PE Gold Bowl...another point of interest is that he has been gelded b4 even having his first start which is invariably indicative of a "problem child"...one needs to look at Paul Matchett's comment for what it was, a genuine assessment that went awry and not sling off unnecessarily as if all racing results are cast in stone...

It must of been one of those cases ''The horse is showing nothing at home''...()

i heard the post race interview and the owner was told before the race it showed them absolutely nothing at home and they must start looking at a different career for it...please if you dont like trainers comments just press the mute button rather than talking cuck about them

it happens that is why the outsiders win, they are not fancied by the stable. i agree with titch

Somebody believed that the horse had a real chance..........if you looked at the "live tickets" it was apparent..........PA and P6................anyone who had taken a % of a substantial perm with the horse a banker and was standing to take over a R1m share from the P6, was hardly likely to back the horse too!!!!! which explains the drift.
Perhaps USO should be interviewing grooms and workriders...................Often the boss only knows what he is told.

this game is easy to make faerie tales......

As I say,most tend to under estimate who knows most about what is happening at the coalface,in a stable.
Years ago ,when I had a couple of horses with a particular stable at Raindtjies,I learnt that talking to the "wukkers" improved my stable knowledge considerably!

Anyone remember the betting coup on Bonds The Name? Was heavily backed by a particular jock from 50s into 6s, the owner and trainer came on the post race interview and said they had no idea who put the money down, but they only got 8s because they thought the horse would need the run after its long rest...maybe that is what they were really told by the jocks and/workriders? So they put their money down knowing fully how tuned up the horse really is?...just something to think about...

I know a trainer (a good friend of mine) We watched work and one horse destroys the other in work- The same horse beats everything in the yard - Come raceday the horse runs dismal last - After five starts has not been less than 12 lengths behind the winner - If you asked him what the horse was like on debut he would have said :"really good sort should win a few" - Honest as the day is long but sometimes the work does not match the track . I really doubt that anyone would go out of their way to make a fool of themselves in public so I sday if the word from the stable matches your form study then go for it - If not then no go

mr H perhaps that a sand horse . That's assuming work was on sand .