PE life in a big yard

Was sent this today and thought it was worth posting

Morning,

"if you ever master the trick letting you determine the intent of the Greeff or Smith stable ":

The Greef and Smith stables have +- 150 horses each, owned by various owners, all wanting their horses to run in races, all wanting their horses to place or win as many of these races as possible. So yes, these stables will have multiple runners, multiple chances of placing or winning, multiple chances of not placing, multiple chances of disappointment and multiple chances of pissing off punters.

Both stables have a plethora of work riders, .....2-4 apprentices, 1-3 "stable jockeys", their out-of-town jockey, and their groom work-riders. All professional jockeys deservedly get "given a bone" every now and then, or have their difficult horses that they ride at track, and are given the ride on race day. These eventually have things go their way, and they place, or better still (for the jockey, owner, and stable), win. So yes, you will have the Kendall Minnie's and the Johnathan Soll's "popping a surprise" every now and then!

At the other end of the scale, there are the smaller yards, eg. Laing and Sham yards. Tara Laing trains for Jooste, who buys well bred, quality horses. Most of the horses that arrive at the Laing yard need only be half well, to win. She can pick and choose who to run where, without having to consider, or complete with, other owners horses in the stable. So yes, her stats look amazing!

The Shams also source potential, and are able to purchase, or buy into, decent horses, which with a little (or a lot of) TLC, can shine. (Having a transport company, and making many contacts over the years, has done no harm, either. No disrespect intended). So yes, their stats also look amazing!

And, somewhere in the middle you have a yard such as that of Yvette Bremner. The less said the better, ...it should suffice to say that with "outside influence" she has secured a formidable string of horses!

Are Greeff and Smith expected to run only their best prospect in each race? Are they expected to leave their mediocre horses in their stable? Horses, who on a good day, or a day given a good ride, interference free, all to their liking run, ....and lots of "luck", can win! Are they expected to give paying owners a brass? Are they expected not to give their "local jockeys" rides (and an income), which can only happen by running all the "mediocre" horses? Are they expected to manage their yards according to the expectations of the punter, or in the best interest of their horses, clients, and staff?

The "intent" of the Greeff and Smith stables, in my opinion, is to give all their owners, all their jockeys, all their grooms, and all their hard working staff, an opportunity to compete (and earn a living)!

I'm really interested to know what the forum posters expect?

Thank you.

A simple question why do the BIG yards need 150 horses , all paying owners :S The other yards mentioned business model works for them so why the comparison and comments [ insinuations ] ..

The thread is a response to my comment,so let me respond!

I fully appreciate the factors that are in the communique.It is also understood that there is an inconsistent factor built into the animal and it can never be an exact science....I have raced for over 40 years and unless I accepted reasonable levels,I would have turned it up years ago.
However using 2 independent rating systems in parallel and then the handicapping and Formgrids filtering,I will tell you that if the consistency rule is ever more strongly enforced, collateral form within the stable/s would lead to suspensions ...................the rate of the lessor form runners being more competitive is very high (perhaps other forumites would comment)
Could be coincidence of course but is noticeable and reflects in the "patterns" The mediocre horses are obviously entitled to a run,but the results frequently confuse the issue,as,which are the mediocre horses seems to switch around quite often!
Interesting that the Sham yard have set new levels of consistency and accurate assessment of runners in PE and have blown a lot of the "that's racing" myths out of the window!
Perhaps the problem has been identified in the response? .................maybe the limits of how many horses can be equally managed is exceeded in the "bigger" yards!!

The difference between these so called big yards and if I may use the shams is at least we r informed tht a horse tht has had poor form is doing very well and big run expected.They may not always get it right but at least we have a clue.Im sure all on this forum would want all horses , jocks etc to do well all we need to knw is well being of horse and as for comment on horse thts well bred or costs a lot justs need to show up to win indicates this author has no idea of prep needed to run a horse and remember laing is basically getting the "hand me down" jooste horses.

Mr P your talking pish

If you have a horse that is a donkey at the Snaiths they tell you.Not good for the owners and not good for the trainers stats.You cant make a bad horse good....doesnt matter who you are!

Thts your opinion would like to read ur comments on the post

Like Rob I have raced for many years What I find amusing and I attend the training tracks more often than I should
is when the trainers asks the groom "what horse is that?"while it is walking in the ring
I believe Hong limit a trainer to 60 Here perhaps a 100 could be max
In big yards there will always be wastage

mr p Wrote:

---

> Thts your opinion would like to read ur comments
> on the post


Tara is not everyones cup of tea, but to say all she is doing is turning out others horses is bang out of order,you don`t just fuel and turn a key

Hibs thts exactly wht I meant in my post it doesn't mean if a person has well bred horses or horses tht r expensive that they will just run well lots of prep done by trainer

Ok , sorry picked u up wrong

how can we as clanners take an anonymous letter serious... put a name to your letter l tell you....()