- This topic has 87 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So what?
All Weather racing does not rely on the "gate" any more than Premiership football teams do any more. It is all about having racing available in the betting shops.I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysDespite the reported slump, a northern all weather track that’s been rumoured can only be a good thing.
"Slump"?!
How can it get any worse?
6 punters turning up instead of 10?
Not in favour of more AW tracks in principle, but can’t begrudge Northern owners/trainers having one… As long as fixtures come from Southern courses. There’s too much AW racing as it is, and far too much lower grade stuff in particular.
Value Is EverythingThere’s too much AW racing as it is, and far too much lower grade stuff in particular.
You’d be singing a very different tune if that is where your edge lay.
I’d quite like to see a classic or two run on the all-weather.
The St. Leger perhaps? Why not? It might even raise the status of the race.
There’s room enough surely to build an AW track at Newmarket, so why not have a guineas or two on it?There’s too much AW racing as it is, and far too much lower grade stuff in particular.
You’d be singing a very different tune if that is where your edge lay.
Possibly Indocine, possibly not.
Amazed AW fixtures already contribute over
33%
of Flat Racing fixtuures (296 of 881). Don’t want to see that figure get any bigger whether I made a profit on it or not. Supposedly brought in to give us racing when Turf can not cope. Plays its part and have no problem in Winter, but why do we need so much of it in Summer? It’s the quality!1. When prize money is so low it’s bound to bring more skulduggery.
2. IMO Horses on the lowest marks in those lowest quality racing have no business winning races of any type in Britain (AW or Turf).
Fair enough there’s been a few improvements in that direction on the AW recently. However, doubt whether there’d be many good grade races in amongst Newcastle or Catterick stuff.
Value Is EverythingWhy shouldn’t there be cr@p races for cr@p horses?
The owners of such nags pay money in training fees that’s just as bankable as dosh paid in training fees for better horses. Why deny them their chance of winning a race? Such horses and the attendant fees help keep some trainers afloat and staff employed. Plus, an exciting photo finish in an AW race is just as exciting as one in a GP1 race. True, there’s a greater pre-disposition to fiddle in low prize money races, but that’s a separate issue.
If thousands of owners are happy to pay the fees to keep slow-coaches in training, then why shouldn’t the sport give them opportunities to have their ""moment in the sun?Sad to see the prejudice some posters have against all-weather racing.
It’s great entertainment, competitive racing and a good betting medium if you put the study in. You even get to see plenty of familiar names who featured on Channel 4 racing in their heyday. Tartan Gigha, Rakaan, and Huzzah are among the old favourites who have showed up in the last couple of weeks.
I guess the state of the economy means that people have less spare cash and less free time, so nights out at the races get cut. That has certainly been my situation until recently, but I am hoping to pay a visit to Kempton or Lingfield next week.
I don’t think that anybody here objects to all weather racing per se. The problem is that there is simply too much of it, diverting funding from turf racing.
What need is there for AW during the turf flat season? The AW season should start the Monday after the November Handicap and finish on the Saturday before the Lincoln. The much heralded climax to the AW season could be held on that Saturday, rather than ruining everyone’s Good Friday.
Courses have shown with the recent "bumpers for jumpers" meetings that they can put on cards at short notice; if there is a particularly wet summer and turf racing gets washed out, the AW tracks can then step in. But there is no need whatsoever for a year-round AW schedule. The public have shown that they’re not interested by voting with their feet; perhaps the authorities should show some common sense in the light of the latest attendance figures released yesterday.
Why shouldn’t there be cr@p races for cr@p horses?
The owners of such nags pay money in training fees that’s just as bankable as dosh paid in training fees for better horses. Why deny them their chance of winning a race? Such horses and the attendant fees help keep some trainers afloat and staff employed. Plus, an exciting photo finish in an AW race is just as exciting as one in a GP1 race. True, there’s a greater pre-disposition to fiddle in low prize money races, but that’s a separate issue.
If thousands of owners are happy to pay the fees to keep slow-coaches in training, then why shouldn’t the sport give them opportunities to have their ""moment in the sun?All those arguements could be put foreward for a horse rated not 40… but theoretically 39 lbs less than that; at just
"1"
. So if owners are willing to pay to keep a horse in training with a rating of just
1, should races be framed for them too Insomniac?
Or do you (like me) believe there should be a measure of ability a horse needs to achieve before being able to win in Britain?
May be you believe the figure should be lower than I do, that’s fair enough; but surely you can see there needs to be a cut off level, even though it may not be an official figure?
Britain is supposed to be one of the elite racing countries, with the best quality racing in the World. Why should poor quality horses win races in Britain? Why not get the experts to look at what level we should be aiming at? Am no expert, but I’d suggest something like a
lowest
grade
handicap
framed to produce a
bottom
weight of
around 60
.
eg Having a 0-74 handicap where the minimum weight carried is 8-7 and highest weight 9-7. Only if the top weight is rated below 74 does a 59 (or whatever) horse carry its true weight…
…With a safety net of Claimers and Sellers down to a bottom weight of 50. 50 being the worst rating a horse could win with without being in the "long handicap".
Doesn’t have to be done overnight. Say gradually up the figure by 1 each year from say 40 the first year to 50 the tenth year, so that owners would not need to get rid of their current horses and not alter breeding markets in one go either. In future, owners would know where they stand. Either buying a better horse or part of one, but where horses prove not good enough to win… then
sell
. Just as those at a lesser level (not good enough to win) are sold today.
Current base quality levels are imo set too low Insomniac. Not only to the detriment of racing, but also our breeding industry. Poor quality mares are kept producing because mare owners know the safety net is set low.
I don’t see the
"greater pre-disposition to fiddle in low prize money races"
as being at all a
"seperate issue"
. Another completely respectable reason not to have low grade racing.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster – you make some good points which make sense to me.
I’m certainly not advocating additional resources be found to add races framed for the lowest of the low.I really just want to defend the right of owners to continue racing their horses if they want to, no matter how damn slow the nags are. If they want to race them and are happy to pay the fees, then let them. If the programme book doesn’t give such horses opportunities then tough – they won’t be able to race them.
But, if the current race conditions allow for a donkey to run – even if it has to carry way above its’ handicap mark – and theowner is happy to pay the fees, carry on.
Of course having a level of racing that encourages fiddling (was there ever a time when some sort of fiddling never occurred?) is a serious issue. But, for me anyway, on this thread, I just want to espouse the right of the owner to run his horse – where race conditions allow – if he wants to. He’s paid the fees, let him enter the party.Gladiateur,
You question the need for AW meetings during the summer, but the reason they exist is quite simple.
Racing has a deal with the bookies via the Levy to provide a certain number of meetings every day of the week, both afternoon and evening.
If all the necessary flat meetings had to be staged on the available turf courses between March and November, the racing surface at most turf tracks would be ruined. They’d be dustbowls in mid summer and mudheaps in the autumn, with little or no grass in evidence.
In addition, the process by which courses bid for fixtures gives the turf tracks the opportunity to avoid staging meetings at times when they know that crowds will be small and sponsorship difficult to obtain. Hence the much reduced number of turf fixtures in April, as the turf tracks prefer to bid for evening meetings later in the summer.
Whether or not having AW racing during the summer is desirable is another question, but as things stand it’s inevitable.
Whether or not having AW racing during the summer is desirable is another question, but as things stand it’s inevitable.
Which is the entire crux of the issue.
AW racing only exists to appease the bookies, which makes it all the more ironic when stings like last week’s take place and they all start bleating about it. Racing has to find a way to distance itself from these parasites in order to make the sport more healthy and self-sustainable. Getting rid of AW during the summer months would be a sensible first step in accomplishing just that.
Getting rid of AW during the summer months would be a sensible first step in accomplishing just that.
I don’t mind some Summer AW racing, but there’s too much of it at the moment.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster – you make some good points which make sense to me.
I’m certainly not advocating additional resources be found to add races framed for the lowest of the low.I really just want to defend the right of owners to continue racing their horses if they want to, no matter how damn slow the nags are. If they want to race them and are happy to pay the fees, then let them. If the programme book doesn’t give such horses opportunities then tough – they won’t be able to race them.
But, if the current race conditions allow for a donkey to run – even if it has to carry way above its’ handicap mark – and theowner is happy to pay the fees, carry on.
Of course having a level of racing that encourages fiddling (was there ever a time when some sort of fiddling never occurred?) is a serious issue. But, for me anyway, on this thread, I just want to espouse the right of the owner to run his horse – where race conditions allow – if he wants to. He’s paid the fees, let him enter the party.Agree with all of that Insomniac. I’d imagine most owners will want to sell if their horse is not good enough. However, have no objection to them running if they’re happy being out of the weights. With the exception of absolute no hopers in Group/Grade 1’s… but that’s possibly for another thread.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.