- This topic has 34 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
If anyone can explain to me the logic of having a lower field-size limit than a safety limit at the same track – an explanation not involving reference to "trilaterals" or "lizards" – then I would appreciate it.
I don’t see a logical reason for it, other than the ones that Glenn regularly puts forward TBH. It makes no sense at all.
The loguic comes from the fact the course itself could support say 20 runners a race whereas there are only sufficient stables to support 16 runners a race.
It used to be that trainers of runners in earlier races were asked to vacate the stables for runners in later races. Now the rules state one stable one runner – no more "hot bunking"
If I may piggyback onto the thread title, Thorograph have been offering free sheets on British races until the end of April. Has anyone availed themselves of them, and what do you think of them?
I know I’d find them pretty daunting, but at some stage over the next few days I’m going to print some off, and see whether I can make more sense of them when they are applied to British racing, with which I am familiar, rather than North American racing.
Thanks, Paul.
I wonder whose initiative it was to do away with so-called "hot bunking", with the consequences that we have seen.
I still don’t doubt that the rule is there but the BHA are hardly going to come out and say that they want 14-runner handicaps at most flat tracks for the benefit of the bookmakers … oh except for Heritage Handicaps and races shown live on Channel 4 because the overround is scandalous there anyway!
If anyone can explain to me the logic of having a lower field-size limit than a safety limit at the same track – an explanation not involving reference to "trilaterals" or "lizards" – then I would appreciate it.
The limit in maiden point-to-points is often set a couple of runners short of the equivalent for races for better horses, even when they are over the same distance.
I guess in that sphere, at least, it could be something to do with giving the inexperienced animals a bit more space / daylight to get as kindly and untroubled a route round on what in many cases could be their initial racecourse experience. You’ll know better than me whether the smaller limit at Kempton is similarly the preserve of maiden stakes contests alone, though.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
The last three all-weather meetings at Kempton at which handicaps have been split have resulted in 56 runners, 59 runners and 65 runners.
In each case the splitting ensured that handicaps came in at between 8 and 11 runners rather than anywhere approaching the safety limit.
Kempton clearly have more than 65 stables. For instance, on November 19th 2008, another date on which a handicap was split, the course managed to accomodate 91 runners.
So, just what is going on?
Was it the stables? Or was it the jockeys?……. Or was it the "lizards" and the "trilaterals"?!!!
Folks , its just Kempton , the sandpit of shame , who really cares what they do there as far as flat racing is concerned
Its such a shame they butchered a lovely turf track , for the benefit of bags racing and the bookies , now its just like crayford on a cold wet afternoon , watched in betting shops , but track is mostly empty , 3 bookies who can return the prices their masters demand
so who gives a damn ??
Ricky
American racing is already in full flow at Newmarket – 15 races over two days this week and every single one of them run at distances of 10F or less.
Since 2005, on the Newmarket Rowley course, there have been (approximately):
58 races over 5F
168 races over 6F
201 races over 7F
181 races over 8F
64 races over 9F
154 races over 10F
118 races over 12F
36 races over 14F
29 races over 16F
13 races over 18FWhich, if my maths is correct, represents ~ 75% of races taking place over distances between 7 and 10 furlongs. Within a season, there can be the farce of the majority of races on a given card taking place over a single distance – often 7 furlongs.
The monotony is not unique to Newmarket. Why, for example, do Sandown hold only 2 races per season over 2 miles? Whilst recognizing the impact that the demands of the breeding industry have had on the structure of racing, the (on occasion) low grade of racing on offer at the Esher track would suggest that it could cater for unfashionable horses more often.
Amongst other ‘oddities’ that bemuse me is that we have an extremely fast 5 furlong track at Epsom that is capable of providing an exciting event for the spectator; yet there have been only 43 races over this distance since 1995.
I’ve watched the featureless uninspiring fare on offer from the USA and, in some respects, the UK does seem to be heading down that road.
In terms of flat racing in the UK we have an industry that fuels the needs of a number of self-interest groups. However, whilst seemingly offering a spectator sport, it makes little effort in that respect, beyond extracting as much cash from and offering as little value as possible to that particular group.
Whilst recognizing the impact that the demands of the breeding industry have had on the structure of racing….
The demands of the breeding industry indeed!!
It is extraordinary that in racing, the supplier of the basic product (i.e racehorses) can dictate to the consumer (racing) what it is that they must buy.
Outside of state-owned monopolies, I can’t think of a single business which has this quasi-stalinist outlook in these consumer-driven times.
It ought to be the case that the sport decides what mix of race distances is most appropriate, and therefore what kinds racehorses are needed to run in them, and for the breeding industry to then produce what is required.
Of course, we need a wide variety of different distances in flat races and Newmarket’s race planners have ignored this for the Craven Meeting, to their great discredit.
Scallywag wrote:-
The monotony is not unique to Newmarket. Why, for example, do Sandown hold only 2 races per season over 2 miles?
Also, Haydock seems to have a disproportionately large number of Sprint Handicaps these days. Presumably because the "Lancashire Lager Louts" that attend don’t want to waste precious drinking time watching the actual races?
Incidentally, back to the original point of the thread. I have no problem with colour coded Saddle Cloths. All courses that have adopted the maximum 14 limit (e.g. Wolvo, Southwell, Lingfield, Folkestone) should adopt this as an ID mechanism.
At least Kempton haven’t gone down the Finger Lakes (watch in on ATR if you dare) route of having colour coded silks to match the racecard number!
Regarding field sizes at Kempton, I emailed John Maxse, Director of Communications for Kempton’s owners, in September after a valuable meeting there in which there were a couple of 16-runner fields. I hope he doesn’t mind me sharinf his reply.
The actual safety factor for the 7f, 1m, 1m 2f, 1m 4f and 2m starts at Kempton is 16, although after consultation between the jockeys, BHA course inspectors and Kempton, it was agreed that for the bulk of the meetings at Kempton the maximum field size should be 14. The jockeys were in favour of a reduction and in view of the volume of racing, together with the breadth of experience in race riding terms which accompanies that many fixtures and the variable standards of horses competing, it was felt that 14 was a sensible number at which to draw the line for the vast majority of races. However, on the days when Kempton stages handicaps of a certain value, which in itself ensures a high standard of horse and rider, the full safety figure of 16 is in operation. This also has a positive knock on effect in terms of betting turn over for the Kempton Park races which attract high class handicappers, as well each way betting for the first 4.
Very interesting development…
From a racecallers perspective, I am not a fan of them but from a spectator standpoint I am. I do know more than one commentator who all but entirely relies on the saddlecloth color for identification and the calls are seldom stimulating.
Although Kempton has a 14 maximum, if another track were to adopt this, there are colors upto 22 available, though it starts getting a little silly with colors like moonstone!
A lot of tracks in the US use house silks for all their races (silks of the saddlecloth color) or the caps are the saddlecloth color. (this is the case at Presque Isle Downs and Arapahoe Park)
Owners are under no obligation to differentiate between different runners and it is not uncommon at tracks where there are no house silks for multiple horses in the same race wearing identical jacket and cap colors. I had 4 in one race at Turfway last month, all 4 chestnuts on a gloomy rainy day – was not much fun!
Another thing to consider is if an owner has multiple horses around the country he may not have 10 sets of silks, so the house silks can come in handy.
The USA is the only country where owners are not fined for not using their silks. For us racecallers we often do not see the correct silks until the horses are coming out on to the track (at most US tracks you cant see the paddock from the commentary box area) and once we have announced the race conditions, ghastly changes to our color charts ensue as we try to relearn the new colors!
Craig
In virtually all instances in the states the jockeys provide the cap colours/covers. Only if the owner has an unusual design would they have to provide it themselves.
When British horses run in the states and take over the owner’s colours an American jockey would normally ignore the owner’s cap (which would be too big for their helmets anyway) and use one of their own from the jockey’s room.
When Hard Buck ran in Doyen’s King George they only brought over the jacket with them and (as we only realised this at the last moment) a yellow cap cover was kindly recycled from an earlier English runner by the valets.
The lighting is poor on some of the bends, why don’t they improve it or are they not allowed to?
Sorry only just seen this one.
They can’t "improve" the lighting – they had major problems obtaining approval for the floodlights in the first place and the council imposed very tight restrictions regarding light levels.
It is not that you cannot see the racing but the lighting levels really do make it very difficult to differentiate colours especially when you have runners with similar colours – as I am sure Richard, Lee and anyone else who has tried to race read there will attest. Certainly amongst the race readers a floodlit Kempton gig is amongst the least popular.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.