- This topic has 80 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Excellent work regarding delaying the 3.00 at Lingfield with Huntingodn ruunning late. Hopefully a sign of things to come.
Did they clash in the end? Didn’t realise, though have to admit I was more interested in the end of Lingfield than the beginning of Muss.
I take it all back then.
Missed about a mile of the Musselburgh race as Barty said they’d just completed a third of the race when I switched over, still at least they can be seen to be making an effort for a change.
Also missed Power Shared refusing to race (unfortunately RUK didn’t show a replay of the start like they usually do when nothing happens)but that was due to an Irish race so can’t blame that on the BHA.Also missed Power Shared refusing to race (unfortunately RUK didn’t show a replay of the start like they usually do when nothing happens)but that was due to an Irish race so can’t blame that on the BHA.
Didn’t miss much – he just planted himself at the start – was a bit of a surprise as he seemed OK going down.
Jock tried to get him to go but he wasn’t going to budge – eventually hacked back a few hundred yards behind the field.
It’s not a sign of things to come according to recent evidence, unless Silvoir can tell us different. It seems that from Monday to Friday, there is someone responsible for ensuring clashes are avoided where possible, but this doesn’t happen on weekends or bank holidays, which are the days with the biggest number of bettors and therefore the highest potential betting revenue.
Paul,
Just to clarify what happened with Power Shared (I’ve been away from my computer since yesterday). At the first attempt to start the race, as they came through the gate onto the track, Noble Future stopped, lashed out and caught Power Shared on his shoulder. The vet had a look at him, declared him OK and they were them told to take a turn and walk in, with the starter by then on his rostrum.
As they came in, Noble Future again came across in front of Power Shared and briefly stopped. Understandably, Power Shared didn’t fancy getting another kick, so he backed away and reared up to defend himself. The jockey was shouting to the starter, but he let them go anyway. This version of events was entirely confirmed by the assistant starter when my trainer insisted on viewing the events on the big screen in the stewards room.
Leighton Aspell admitted he was unsure of the rules and so he opted not to cross the start line once the horse had been left 20 lengths in the (vain) hope that the starter would declare the horse a non runner. Personally, I didn’t have a bet, so I was unaffected by this aspect.
Power Shared didn’t ‘plant himself’, nor did he refuse to race. The statement in Post that he ‘disgraced himself’ is pathetic from someone that made no effort to establish the facts.
The starter first told us that he hadn’t seen the horse. This defence collapsed when it was pointed out that Power Shared was the most visible horse at the entire meeting. He then claimed that the horse had reared just as he’d released the tape. This was disproved by the viewing of the film. He also claimed he hadn’t heard the jockey shouting, which was when the assistant starter stated that he had also been shouting ‘No,no,no’.
Whilst I accept that the horse can’t be considered entirely blameless, just ask one question – would the starter have acted in the same way if the horse backing away had been trained by Nicholls or Henderson. And if you believe the answer to that is yes, then I’d refer you to the film of the Twist Magic start last Saturday.
It seems that starters are a protected species and that no error of theirs can ever be subject to investigation. The chinless waste of space that acts as the stewards secretary at Huntingdon (I’m sure you know who I mean) immediately leapt to the defence of the starter, despite the fact that he had been nowhere near the start, hadn’t at that point view the film, or spoken to any of the individuals involved.
AP
Just to clarify what happened with Power Shared (I’ve been away from my computer since yesterday). At the first attempt to start the race, as they came through the gate onto the track, Noble Future stopped, lashed out and caught Power Shared on his shoulder. The vet had a look at him, declared him OK and they were them told to take a turn and walk in, with the starter by then on his rostrum.
Have to say I did not see the kicking incident
Leighton Aspell admitted he was unsure of the rules and so he opted not to cross the start line once the horse had been left 20 lengths in the (vain) hope that the starter would declare the horse a non runner. Personally, I didn’t have a bet, so I was unaffected by this aspect.
Aspell is an experienced jockey – he should know the rules.
Power Shared didn’t ‘plant himself’, nor did he refuse to race.
The horse did not move and made no attempt to race – that looks like a plant to me.
If, as you are suggesting, Aspell deliberately held the horse back and refused to race then that is an absolute disgrace and the matter should be referred.
Are you saying the local stewards heard the explanation from Aspell that you quoted above and took no action?
The statement in Post that he ‘disgraced himself’ is pathetic from someone that made no effort to establish the facts.
As you are no doubt aware the Racing Post analysis is not written from the course.
The comments-in-running said "Refused to race, took no part" which is correct the horse did refuse to race and took no part in the race, albeit because the jockey held him back. It is merely a question of semantics as to whether the refusal to race was the fault of the horse or jockey.
From the viewpoint of the race reader, who was incidentally standing next to me, the horse refused to race and that was the universal view of those of us who saw the start.
The bottom line is the horse did not race and from what you say he refused to race with the connivance of the jockey.
What it means is the actions of the jockey resulted in punters not getting a run for their money.
Whilst I accept that the horse can’t be considered entirely blameless,
Not to mention the jockey!!!
Hopefully Paul Struthers will read this thread – what you have said in this thread (Ignoring the emotive rants) raises some very interesting issues – not least the inference the jockey effectively refused to race.
Paul,
How in God’s name you manage to twist that to make us the villains I have no idea.
As for emotive, well excuse me – how terrible that an owner should be emotionally involved with his horse.
AP
AP – if you have a start that you’d like reviewed you just have to get in touch with us. Email me and I’ll forward it on. I’ve read the Stewards’ notes but it would be wrong of me to post them on here so PM or email me.
Rory – they system still isn’t working as well as it should on a Saturday and we’re very conscious of it. C4 demands have a huge impact – which I wish some on here who know that would at least recognise.
Rory – they system still isn’t working as well as it should on a Saturday and we’re very conscious of it. C4 demands have a huge impact – which I wish some on here who know that would at least recognise.
Thanks Paul – good to know that it’s on the agenda.
C4 demands have a huge impact – which I wish some on here who know that would at least recognise.
I think you’ll find most forumites are well aware but don’t agree with it.
Another case of the tail wagging the dog despite the tail being paid.
Maybe C4 should be made aware that racing doesn’t only revolve around their coverage.Yeats – I think you’ll find most sports with TV coverage do their utmost to fall in line with the demands of that medium (football for instance). Racing wouldn’t be alone in having demands placed on it in that regard and, I’d suggest, racing needs to meet these demands (and some) to ensure that the vital coverage it needs to maintain interest levels in the sport is sustained and, where possible) increased.
Corm
You could argue the difference is that the Premier League receive hundreds of millions of pounds to share out between them as a result of cow-towing to playing on a Sunday afternoon and a Monday night. Racing receives exactly how much from Channel 4?
Paul,
How in God’s name you manage to twist that to make us the villains I have no idea.
I thought I explained it pretty well Alan – what part are you having trouble understanding?
Quite simple really – by your own admission your jockey deliberately held back the horse thus depriving punters of a run for their money.
By your own admission you did not have a bet, so it’s a case of "I’m all right Jack, sod the rest of you" is it?
My view is the actions of your jockey in deliberately not starting the race brings the sport into disrepute.
As for emotive, well excuse me – how terrible that an owner should be emotionally involved with his horse.
So that justifies making personal comments about officials?
Although I notice you don’t even have the balls to name them – rather cowardly do you not think?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.