- This topic has 49 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Nope, I’m not saying there’s nothing wrong with stopping horses. I’m saying either put a set of stringent rules in place (and apply them no matter what) or leave things as they have been for centuries and stop moaning.
The former avenue would be almost impossible to execute, so the latter is what we need to live with, and people have done exactly that for a long time.
The “stringent rules” are already in place Joe.
All the stewards need to do is apply them.Value Is EverythingThey might be rules, but they ain’t stringent.
Stringent would be “If a horse wins when wearing ancillary equipment – headgear/tongue tie/special bit etc., he must wear the same equipment in all future races”
or “if a horse has won twice or more at the same trip when supported in the market, that horse will be confined to that trip, with a maximum 25% leeway, until the end of the season AFTER the season in which he wins his most recent races”
That’s stringent.
And I’d bet contributors could add a few more in different flavours!
Ginger, you say that manipulating a handicap mark or a future SP by allowing a horse to run in conditions which do not suit is fine. Why is there nothing wrong with that? How does it differ from pulling one?
Because the horse is running to the best of it’s ability in the first case and not doing so in the latter.
Mike
Ginger, you say that manipulating a handicap mark or a future SP by allowing a horse to run in conditions which do not suit is fine. Why is there nothing wrong with that? How does it differ from pulling one? The fact that many punters will know conditions are not ideal on a particular day and therefore won’t bet does not change the fact that the trainer prevented the horse running on his merits – assuming merits means being given the best possible chance to win. It’s ethically just the same as physically preventing a horse winning.
But, trainers are within the rules even if they run a sprinter in the Ebor. Caveat Emptor. But shouldn’t it be Caveat Bookie or Caveat Handicapper? Both are free to ignore runs outside of the horse’s ideal conditions and/or when there is no market support, assuming the data to judge these is in the public domain.
No! It’s nothing like the same, and I believe you know it Joe.
Just because connections run a horse over a trip etc not believed to be its optimum, does not mean the “trainer prevented the horse running on his merit”. What matters is the horse must NOT BE PREVENTED from producing its best under the prevailing conditions. ie Connections are still trying to win that race, it’s just the performance rating achievable won’t be as good as it would be in optimum conditions.
To equate connections trying to win a race under less than optimum conditions, with connections deliberately physically stopping a horse from doing its best to win a race… is nonsense. I’m surprised at you Joe.
If a horse likely to be best as a stayer runs at 10f, it still can be “trying” and may be good enough to win the race. It’s just that his very best won’t be seen until running at 1m6f+.
Under your logic, a horse bred for the Derby is a non-trier if first trying to win the 2000 Guineas.
Is running Camelot in the 2000 Guineas “ethically just the same as physically preventing a horse winning”? I think not.Value Is EverythingThey might be rules, but they ain’t stringent.
Stringent would be “If a horse wins when wearing ancillary equipment – headgear/tongue tie/special bit etc., he must wear the same equipment in all future races”
or “if a horse has won twice or more at the same trip when supported in the market, that horse will be confined to that trip, with a maximum 25% leeway, until the end of the season AFTER the season in which he wins his most recent races”
That’s stringent.
And I’d bet contributors could add a few more in different flavours!
:lol:
Am sure you are aware of a lot of horses needing headgear changed to produce their best, because they get used to one type of headgear? eg A horse who’s won twice with blinkers may not be capable of winning again in blinkers. Where as a change to a visor or cheek pieces could produce another win.Only today, Trevisani won well backed first time visored.
He’d previously lost his mojo when blinkered – after winning first time blinkered.
Luckily for him, didn’t win again in blinkers before losing his mojo, because had he done so under your proposals just as well have retired him.So if a three year old has run up to 11f it can not run in the Queens Vase?
Value Is EverythingGinger, you are straw-manning all over the place here. I don’t mind debating with you, but when you start these silly and juvenile -‘I’m surprised at you, Joe’ – admonishments, and wandering way beyond the context then I’m going to refer you to my signature line.
The context here is horses being run outside of their optimum conditions with the ultimate objective of landing a gamble. Assuming you agree with that and we can dispense with these silly straw men Guineas Derby analogies, let us carry on.
No matter how hard a horse runs in a 3 mile race, if its optimum conditions are two miles then it is not running on its merits, because it has been intentionally entered in a race where it is impossible to run on its merits. Therefore the trainer has prevented the horse running on its merits. So, that trainer might be within the rules of racing, but ethically he is behaving no differently to those who cheat.
No matter how hard a horse runs in a 3 mile race, if its optimum conditions are two miles then it is not running on its merits, because it has been intentionally entered in a race where it is impossible to run on its merits. Therefore the trainer has prevented the horse running on its merits. So, that trainer might be within the rules of racing, but ethically he is behaving no differently to those who cheat.
You mean like Desert Orchid was by most experts thought pure and simply a 2 miler before running in the King George?
Yes, Desert Orchid was in the top grade and not usually a handicapper. Would you have prevented Elsworth running him in the Racing Post Chase if that was his first intended 3 mile start?… Point is, lesser 2 mile handicappers are just as likely to make fools of experts by staying 3 miles.
Who is to judge/prevent a horse running at a different distance?
In theory the best person to judge a horse’s requirements is the trainer.
Optimum conditions of any horse can change. A horse can settle much better at home or be much more free. After foot or leg injury it may no longer be as effective on its previously optimum firm going.Value Is EverythingThere is always a chance (no matter how minute) of a horse thought of as a pure 2 miler staying 3 miles. But the point is punters can judge for themselves if it is likely to stay, go on the ground etc… And if a horse runs under unsuitable conditions then the handicapper can (and usually does) ignore the form/run.
Where as punters and the handicapper are swindled when a horse is deliberately physically stopped from winning/producng its best in the prevailing conditions.
The two are not comparable and am amazed someone of your racing knowledge Joe, can not see it.
Value Is EverythingGinger, you are straw-manning all over the place here. I don’t mind debating with you, but when you start these silly and juvenile -‘I’m surprised at you, Joe’ – admonishments,
It was you who first described mine and other TRFers posts as “pious hand-wringging” Joe. Ok with me if that’s your view. However, don’t be too surprised if getting a little “admonishment” in return.
Value Is EverythingSorry but it’s just dodgy and saying that it’s been going on for 100 years isn’t good enough. If it was then we still wouldn’t mind MP’s dodging their expenses or bankers swindling their clients or Lance Armstrong taking EPO. Sport in general has been trying to clean up and if racing does nothing about this blatant cheating then it can’t hope to be taken seriously. I accept that trainers and owners need to pay the bills and that prize money alone is not enough to keep most going but they have to stick within the rules. In your two scenarios running a horse over the wrong trip is staying within the rules, stopping your horse from running to the best of its ability is not.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I couldn’t believe my ears listening to Simon Clare on ATR earlier telling people to bet on FOBT’s and cartoon racing as it’s more fun and not fixed like real racing.
Jonibake, I’m failing to see the difference here. Deliberately running your horse over the wrong trip is stopping it from running to the best of its ability. It’s not so blatant as pulling its teeth out, but the intention and the result are exactly the same.
If trainers who stay within the rules are not to be criticised, then what is the point of this thread? No action was taken against Byrnes; he was deemed to be within the rules.
The only Timeform book I ever owned was their 2009 Horses in Training, with Irish supplement. If you have this, look up every horse trained by Tony Martin or Sir Mark Prescott who had raced less than three times at the time of publication. “Will do betting in time”, “one for handicaps” or variations on these themes appear in the comments for practically every one.
I couldn’t believe my ears listening to Simon Clare on ATR earlier telling people to bet on FOBT’s and cartoon racing as it’s more fun and not fixed like real racing.
Lemme hear you say ‘misquote’ way-ohhhh-ayyy….
look up every horse trained by Tony Martin or Sir Mark Prescott who had raced less than three times at the time of publication. “Will do betting in time”
If that’s a Freudian slip, it’s a damn fine one!
Mike
I think there is a difference.
Some people think Mark Prescott cheats – but in my view, when I see him run a 2yo with a progressive middle distance pedigree in three 6f juvenile maidens and see it get predictably outpaced I don’t have a problem with it so long as it wasn’t hooked up in the stalls and gets a genuine vigorous ride.
Nor do I then have a problem when said horse rocks up in a 1m 2f handicap as a 3yo off a low initial handicap mark and hacks up at short odds.
The reason? Though I have never spoken to Prescott in my life and never will I at least have the wit to see the horse had a winning opportunity – it’s there in the formbook and the pedigree – and have had a bet on it.
But when a horse is being stopped over its ideal distance and going I am reduced to guessing the day it is “off” and that to me is unacceptable.
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"The difference is simple. A horse has run three times over 6f and is handicapped accordingly. The horse has run as well as it can over the 6f and the trainer has decided that it needs stepping up in trip. Whether that was the intention all along only they know (of course they had) but it is legal and acceptable. Mark Johnston does this all the time and a smart punter can sometimes see that, watch the betting and get involved or not. It is perfectly legal. A horse has run three times over 6f and is handicapped accordingly. The same horse then runs again over 6f and suddenly leaves all known form behind it. In this case there is a decent chance it has been prevented from running to the best of its ability i.e. pulled. When it happens three times in one night from one trainer it is blatant cheating. In this case punters have no way of knowing that the horse is suddenly going to improve unless they are in on it. War Anthem was having his 3rd run over 2m having previously been beaten 64l and 75l. Mr Smith was running for the umpteenth time having been beaten 61l, 55l, 65l, 32l, 68l etc etc – every time beaten out of sight. Top of the Town had been beaten 30l and 21l the last twice over similar distances. This is blatant cheating and is not within the rules. The fact that the stewards deem it acceptable is precisely what this thread is about and what stinks even more than the act itself.
Honestly don’t know how you can argue anything different.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.