- This topic has 96 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
- Posts
Thank you, Drone.
The forecast I am looking at suggests the possibility of continuous rain for the next 24 hours at least, but sunny intervals Friday and sunny Saturday.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I can confirm it was gently raining in South Liverpool about half an hour ago. Which does not necessarily mean it was raining a few miles further north.
Apparently it is OK for Clerks of the Course to intentionally compromise the chances of top of the ground horses nowadays.
Rightly so CAS,
These days with the public’s eye always on the Grand National it can’t afford to have many deaths and am afraid good-firm is simply too dangerous. Especially so as – it being the Grand National, the one everyone wants to win – some are often risked on (for their dodgy legs) unsuitably firmish going.They can not aim for “good” ground because it is an inexact science. If aiming for good it could in reality be genuine good-firm. However, as is often the case (eg this year’s Cheltenham) if aiming for good-soft it can often be genuine good going come off time.
Yes, it does mean those that need good-firm aren’t catered for, but the vast majority of good-firm horses do act on genuine good ground.
They’ve also got the “problem” of better drainage these days. ie It dries out much faster than used to be the case and therefore – if missing the rain – can turn unsuitably firm in very little time.
Value Is Everything“good-firm is simply too dangerous”
I’d love to see the statistical evidence.
And guff about it being common sense or a no brainer doesn’t wash.
I agree with CAS – yet another case of the top-of-the-ground horse being steadily pushed out of racing to be replaced by a net more fragile breed.
It will just create weaker racehorses long term.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Goodness only knows how we managed to have racing at all in the days before clerks of the course poured water all over their tracks.
I will briefly play Devil’s Advocate: in 1990, when Mr Frisk broke the course record, 20 got round but two were killed in falls.
Was that because they were travelling dangerously fast due to the ground?
We will never know for sure.
But two were killed the previous year and so the fences in question, not the surface, were modified….
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“And guff about it being common sense or a no brainer doesn’t wash”.
————————
Have explained why I believe it is common sense, Ian.
Instead of forbidding people making points you don’t agree with, you could just explain / answer why their points are wrong.Or may be it’s because you can’t answer those points.
Value Is Everything….The ground in 1989?
Very testing – Little Polveir took over ten minutes to win the race and only 14 got round.
Two very different surfaces – same level of safety/hazard.
That’s too tiny a sample to be valid evidence.
But it’s bigger than the great big nothing in evidence for the counter argument.
I will happily believe any actual statistics to back up what, without them, are groundless (geddit?) assertions.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Both deaths in 1989 (Brown Trix and Seeandem) occurred at Becher’s Brook on the first circuit. That led to significant moderations being made to that particular fence, but neither fatality can in any way be attributed to the going.
“neither fatality can in any way be attributed to the going”
My thoughts too.
Obviously I’m not “forbidding” contrary opinion – I don’t have that authority and would be a tool to exercise it if I did – but contrary opinions aren’t facts unless backed by evidence and I would honestly like to see evidence ground with the word “Firm” in the going description is more dangerous.
The following view is not a fact because I too have no evidence but I think all this (IMO over)watering is self defeating long term as it just encourages a further long-term weakening of the breed who will get more and more fragile.
Bit ironic, really – inbreeding for speed over good bone yet racing on watered ground which produces slower times.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Have just had another heavy downpour, and I’m in Lydiate….
I find the watering slightly over the top. In days of the old fashioned heavy boned chasers, they ran on all types of ground. Now, most are more flat bred, yet they can’t/won’t go on even decent ground. It’s not great….
I can understand some watering to take the sting out of the ground, and remove firm from the going – but they can’t even tolerate good ground.Hoping CAS sticks to his promise of attending Aintree tomorrow in a ‘Theracingforum’ emblazoned luminous mankini, and hanging around the ITV social tent to maximise media exposure.
BUY THE SUN
If he does, I may have to break the habit of a lifetime and unmute the coverage!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"If he doesn’t, I’ll be more dissapointed than when Real Madrid failed to allocate squad number six to Federico Valverde.
BUY THE SUN
Ian,
Are you really telling us you’d need “statistical evidence” before you could say whether falling on a hard, solid, firm surface results in a bigger percentage of injuries and fatalities than falling on a soft surface which bends and moves much more on impact?Come on, you’re better than that.
Laws of science makes some things obvious without the need for stats.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.