view raw text
l J • f j t , , . ; . • I , | I • i 1 1 , ; ; I I • . ; ■ t i I . 1 . I I ■. . r TRAINING NOT LUCRASIVE ♦ Public in Error Regarding the Profession, Says Gilpin. • Old Chances of Good Watrers at Long Odds So Longer Possible — Increased Expenses Eat lp Profits. « ■•• In the following article from the lonrlon Weekly Dispatch, P. P. Gilpin, the English trainer, gives his views of training as a profession : There is a popular idea that the calling of the trainer is lucrative, one of the many popular ideas that are entirely erroneous. Certainly some trainers are men of substance, hut probably most of them inherited a competence, if not more, to start with. I doubt if it is possible in these days for a trainer to make such a fortune as was made by men of his occupation years ago, and I doubt even more if in those former days a trainer made much out of his actual training. Fortunes were accumulated rather out of successful speculation — in other words, by backing horses when they won big races ; and in previous articles I have explained how different are conditions nowadays in this respect. In the period anterior to my time one could back a horse for any big race at a long price right up to the day of the race. It was not uncommon to get 66 to 1. 100 to 1, or even more over such races as the Chester Cup, the Cesarewitch, the Cambridgeshire, the City and Suburban, the Derby or the St. Leger, and, what is more, get the odds to a substantial amount. BhUm giving trainers chances to win large sums on a small outlay, this condiion of affairs also gave them opportunities of "hedging" their money on horses coming to short prices near the decision of the race. HODCM.VYS BIG BETS. The late George TTodgman used to relate many cases where lie had long odds about horses of his own or those which he knew about, and when he obtained those opportunities naturally other trainers and owners had them also. He had :i bet of 3.00 t » 00 about Stockwell for the Two Thousand Guineas Ions before that event, and on the same horse he had 5,000 to ,000 about the Derby. It would he impo: sible to obtain such bets today about a horse with a real chance. It is generally believed that Stockwell did not win the Derby simply Imcmm he was suffering from a lanced tooth, for Daniel ORourke won that Derby, a 1 hough Stock-well had beaten him in the Two Thousand, and beat him again in the St. Leger. All of which shows how good were Ho Igmans bets. In connection with the Derby it is illumi-I nating also to recall that Mr. Greville was offered 00,000 to ?7.500 against Daniel ORourke by Davis, who was the leviathan layer of those days — and Mr. Greville refused the bet, though he afterward accepted 50,000 to ,000 offered by Davis against Daniel ORourke. Nowadays everybody is too well informel about what is going on, and nothing like the same odds are to be had except to small sums and against horses with almost hopeless chances. I certainly did hear last autumn of a bet of 50,000 to ,000 about a horse that wa3 considered by its connections to have a fair chance, but the result showed that the layer knew more about the horse than the hackers. The animal was Zariba, which came from France to run in the Cambridgeshire, and as she was not placed in the first nine the backers — for more than one was concerned in the bet — had not much of a run for their money. EASY TO WIN MONET. When you could get 40 or 50 or 66 to 1 about a horse that you really fancied, if you had the material to tell you "the proper time of day" it ought not to have been difficult to win money. Hence my reason for saying that the trainers who made money years ago did so mostly by backing horses that were under their charge and when they had good reason to believe that they had something better than an outside chance. Now, a horse that is at all alive and emanates from a stable of any importance will be at an entirely false price, and the trainer has either to look on or risk his money at a much shorter rate of odds than he considers to represent the real chance of his animal. It will be seen, therefore, that he is a singularly blessed trainer who is able to make any money worth talking about nowadays. The private trainer or the trainer who is restricted by agreement to train for one or two owners who club together to retain his services for their horses alone is, of course, in receipt of a salary which pla;cs him in the privileged position, but the public trainer who obtains no salary and has to rely upon the ordinary training charges finds them, despite that they have been increased since the war, barely sufficient to cover ex- penses. Everything is so much more costly ; wages are doubled, or even more in some locp.lities, and general taxaion and local rate:? and taxes have all gone up so enor-t mously that his increased charges do not nearly cover his increased expenditure.
