Grant Williamson of Vinery stops by for Twitter questions

16 thoughts on “Grant Williamson of Vinery stops by for Twitter questions”

  1. Unfortunately, Sid, Grant wasn’t being straightforward about Awesome Act. That sort of happy spin is typical of the industry, but insidious given that people who might bet on or breed to horses such as AA are being deceived. (As a related aside, notice his subtle, though meaningful expression of a lack of confidence in AA’s his chances in the upcoming Wood.)

    Of course I am an anonymous poster challenging the word of someone who is known to be connected with the horse in question, so I would understand if you or some of your readers were skeptical of my claim. Bear in mind, though, that people who have a vested interest in the horse have reason to spin, while I have none.

    1. Tinky, do you have any proof behind your allegations that Grant wasn’t being straightforward? That’s a bold statement if all you have is your usual penchant for conspiracy theories. Mind you, the world needs its share of conspiracy theorists, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But anonymous or not, your comments will be judged for their integrity and accuracy on here by readers, along with Grant’s.

      1. Sid,

        As a related aside on conspiracy theories, I do happen to believe strongly that some sort of high explosives were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. But I have no special expertise in that field, nor any first-hand knowledge confirming my suspicions.

        On the other hand, when I make claims on this, or any other Thoroughbred-related blog, I do so because I either have first-hand knowledge, or have tapped into an impeccable source.

        I have never – not once – asserted something to be factual on any racing or breeding blog without being certain of my information. When I am not certain, I qualify my statements.

  2. Sid,

    If I have a “penchant for conspiracy theories”, then you certainly should be responsible enough to point them out. Otherwise you are simply resorting to ad hominem attacks.

    I know that AA’s connections weren’t entirely “happy” with the way in which he came out of his previous race. And really, if you just read a bit between the lines, you shouldn’t need any inside information in order to arrive at the same conclusion.

    To wit (just posted at

    “That was what we needed,” trainer Jeremy Noseda said. “This his first proper piece of work in 2 1/2 weeks. It’ll do him good. It’ll get him back sharp, it’ll do his wind good. He’s had a good blow. I hope this work will put him where I want him to be.”

    Noseda said Awesome Act had eight or nine days off the track following the Gotham…


    Eight or nine days off? First proper piece of work? Noseda “hopes” that the work will put him where he wants him to be?

    Do you require a translator, Sid?

  3. Sid,

    It is unfortunate that “Tinky” believes that there is any intent to deceive? I believe the main concern coming out of the Gotham was how well AA had run off of such a lengthy layoff and whether he would experience the “Euro bounce”.

    Thanks again for your time,

    1. Really Grant? Noseda and his team were completely happy with the way the AA exited the Gotham? And the reason that he didn’t return to the track for nine days was solely because of his big exertion in his first start in the U.S.? Nine days?

      What is unfortunate is that connections of high-profile horses typically attempt to obfuscate when other than major issues affect their runners. I actually give Noseda a good deal of credit for being as straightforward as he was in the DRF article.

      Finally, you “believe” that the “Euro bounce” was the main concern? It seems rather odd that you wouldn’t be more certain than that, especially under the circumstances.

      Readers of this blog should be able to judge for themselves whether or not things have gone swimmingly for AA since the Gotham.

      1. In yet another public account, Noseda was quoted as saying that AA had gone nine days WITHOUT TACK after the Gotham.

        Sid –

        If you truly believe that you weren’t being spun by Grant, then you might want to consider becoming a White House correspondent for a mainstream media outlet. You’d fit right in.

  4. Grant,

    I wouldn’t worry too much if Tinky slimes you on here (“…happy spin is typical of the industry, but insidious given that people who might bet on or breed to horses such as AA are being deceived.”). I don’t believe you were deceiving anyone here, nor were you “spinning,” nor was it “insidious.”

    Instead, Grant, you were kind enough to speak up front on Twitter to several knowledgeable people who asked some interesting questions, and I thank you for that.

    1. Right, Sid. I’ve “slimed” Grant.

      Never mind that I’ve buttressed what I know to be the case with clear circumstantial evidence that obviously supports my assertion, and that Grant’s rebuttal was a classic non-denial denial.

      I would have expected something closer to an unbiased assessment from you. Oh well.

  5. Tinky writes: “Of course I am an anonymous poster challenging the word of someone who is known to be connected with the horse in question … Bear in mind, though, that people who have a vested interest in the horse have reason to spin, while I have none.”

    One has to wonder what reason Tinky has to remain anonymous.

  6. Tinky, whereas you’ve “read” accounts by J. Noseda and purport to have “reliable” information, I’ve actually spoken to him. Indeed, I had a long conversation with him today, and when the topic came to Awesome Act, I asked him about his training regimen. J. Noseda told me pretty much what Grant had. He is very much a “sheets” guy — Bobby Frankel put him on to that — and he felt that the 3 1/2 that AA ran off a break was too strong to bring him back to the track any sooner. Yes, as Grant said, he is very much concerned about a “bounce.” By the time he was ready to bring him to the track, the rain and slop forced him to wait longer. And yes, as Grant said, he had an easy breeze last week before the stronger work this week. “In my eyes, it was a satisfactory piece of work,” he told me.

    1. Sid,

      So let me get this straight: You had a long conversation with Noseda, and, under the circumstances, chose not to ask him directly whether or not AA came out of the Gotham well? It didn’t occur to you to ask him whether there were any physical issues that caused him to not put tack on the horse for nine days following the race?

      Those simple questions, and honest answers to them, would have cleared the issue up. Instead, you chose the approach that mainstream media stenographers choose when questioning people in power. You chose (from what I can gather from your account) to pose your question(s) in a way that allowed Noseda to comfortably avoid addressing the real issue at hand.

      I’m not questioning whether or not he was concerned about a bounce, I’m questioning how that could fully explain why the horse was kept off the track and not even put under tack for nine days.

      Finally, if you have ever been around (or even heard of) a stakes horse that was stabled at a racetrack, exited a stakes race in fine shape (i.e. with no problems), was pointing for another stakes race in less than a month, and was not put back under tack for nine days, I’d very much like to hear about it.

      P.S. – I would never have challenged the veracity of Grant’s original assertion had I not been completely confident in my knowledge of the situation.

  7. Tinky,

    On the contrary, I asked if AA came out of race well and he said yes, then gave the reasons for why the horse was trained like he was—which is the response I’ve given above.

    However, you apparently have your own closer sources to the horse, so why don’t you tell us all—as you are anonymous and your “cover” will not be blown–what apparently J Noseda and Grant Williamson are not telling the rest of us?

    1. Sid,

      Thanks for clearing up your line of questioning.

      The simple reason that I won’t reveal anything further is that it would put my source(s) in harm’s way.

      I would again suggest that your readers judge for themselves whether or not it is likely that AA came out of the Gotham in fine shape, and whether or not Noseda has chosen an approach to training that is so unorthodox as to be potentially revolutionary.

      Who knows? Perhaps AA will win the Wood, and then other trainers will consider keeping their runners away from the track (without tack) for nearly one-third of the 28 available days in preparation for a Grade I race.

  8. Fair enough, Tinky. I think readers will be careful in assessing AA’s chances based on the comments made by Grant and J Noseda, who have both intimated—shown, more like it—that they are treading carefully with the colt and are concerned that he may bounce. That much was obvious even before your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s