- This topic has 39 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Galejade I think the majority on here understand how fragile racehorses are and some owners have to be very patient just to see their animal make it to the racecourse at all.
In this instance though we can all see that chucking a vets certificate in when a desperate draw is allotted is clearly commonplace, and this has to be wrong, stevedvg was spot on, if you’re willing to gamble on a big advantage from a good draw you cant cry when you get a big diasadvantage, its just not playing the game IMO.
Any owner or trainer who cannot take the rough with the smooth shouldn’t be playing the game. If they don’t want badly drawn horses, enter them at tracks without a bias. I agree that a vet’s certificate should mean a three week leave of absence for the animal. One could claim that it is abuse to run a horse shortly after receiving a vet’s certificate. And I thought that abuse was not tolerated under any circumstances?
<br>Pretty typical of this forum (or any other I expect) when owners are regarded as cheats and expected to go along with ludicrous ideas like a three week ban on running.
I’ve only been associated with one non runner in recent years – Greenwood had to be taken out of a race at Leicester after the farrier bruised his foot. To get a vets certificate cost us £55 for the vet’s call out fee. Without a vets cert, the BHB would have fined us £125 for the non runner.
The horse was OK two days later – why should his owners be penalised any further?
But no, the assumption on here is that we’re all bent, although like Galejade I’ve never managed to work out what it is that so bothers people about non runners that are made public hours before the race.
Except of course those whose lifes work is trying to identify what will finish fourth in a 16 runner handicap.
AP<br>
Can you swap hats now please Alan and try the punting one.
Do you believe that all those runners that were withdrawn as mentioned by the original poster were genuinely not fit to run?
It is difficult for me to see the point in connections getting a vet to give a certificate when the only reason they don’t want a horse to run is because of a perceived bad draw.
Colin
Why should connections be penalised unjustly for their horse having a minor problem, 3 weeks is ridiculous, any outstanding entries is sufficient to placate both sides. <br>Maybe courses should do more to negate the draw, eg Does anyone know of any good reason why Beverley haven’t had an extended trial of having the stalls on the stands side?
What should Chester do then Yeats? Perhaps make it like an athletics track, where the horses in stall 12 have a head start but have to go wide all the way? Any horse that comes across another’s lane would have to be disqualified though. Would make in-running betting a fascinating prospect too.
Quote: from apracing on 8:15 am on Sep. 12, 2006[br]<br>Pretty typical of this forum (or any other I expect) when owners are regarded as cheats and expected to go along with ludicrous ideas like a three week ban on running.
I’ve only been associated with one non runner in recent years – Greenwood had to be taken out of a race at Leicester after the farrier bruised his foot. To get a vets certificate cost us £55 for the vet’s call out fee. Without a vets cert, the BHB would have fined us £125 for the non runner.
The horse was OK two days later – why should his owners be penalised any further?
But no, the assumption on here is that we’re all bent, although like Galejade I’ve never managed to work out what it is that so bothers people about non runners that are made public hours before the race.
Except of course those whose lifes work is trying to identify what will finish fourth in a 16 runner handicap.
AP<br> <br>
<br>Are you saying that the present situation where veterinary certificates are being used to withdraw horses with bad draws is ok? <br>Obviously there exists a culture of putting vets attached to a stable under pressure to oblige with a handy vet cert when owners or trainers don’t want to run for a reason which has nothing to do with the horse’s well being. This brings the veterinary profession into disrepute and breeds cynicism amongst those who follow the sport when the same horses appear within days to fulfil another engagement. I can see the point that two weeks might be harsh but the suggestion that a horse shouln’t be allowed take up any existing entries once so withdrawn seems more than fair to me- and I speak as an owner!<br>
I seem to recall on one occasion a few years ago they put the stalls the other side and that the bias was reversed and that low draws had such a marked advantage.
Seeing as this thread was about Chester, what do you suggest they do about the draw bias?
Hey come on!
Even if these conspiracy theories are right ( and there were less non runners at Chester than either redcar or Folkestone yesterday) you lot want owners to take the rough with the smooth but punters cant! Obviously a bad draw is a definite disadvantage – no one has yet explained the disadvantage to the punter of a withdrawel.
Why not put your considerable intellect and strong moral outrage to overcoming the draw bias. Staggered stalls – now that would make owners, trainers and punters sit up and think!
I agree with Racing Daily. When you enter a horse at Chester you are taking a gamble on getting a good or bad draw. If getting a bad draw is anathema to you, enter somewhere else. I don’t see draw biases as a bad thing- like the variety of our racetracks in these islands they help make our sport more interesting.
Sorry,
posted the above in ignorance of davidjohnson’s comments. I think staggered stalls would be very interesting and rather fun!
Withdrawn horses isn’t much of a problem at Chester as has already been pointed been pointed out by Galejade, you get the odd one or two high drawn withdrawn but the prize money usually encourages them to run, keep the prize money up and you will get the runners despite the draw.
As for Beverley, I think they tried it for one meeting were nothing was conclusively proven, there was certainly no complete reverse of the bias, for some unknown reason they aborted the experiment after the one meeting.
<br>No, I don’t believe that every non runner with a vets cert is 100% genuine.
But nor do I believe that it would be right to punish the majority with a ban for the wrong doing of a minority – a view I apply to all walks of life, not just racing. The answer is plainly to deal with the minority, not introduce rules that apply across the board
AP<br>
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from insomniac on 7:52 pm on Sep. 12, 2006[br]Genuine question (honest!). Which courses have no or the least draw bias?<br>
Leicester!<br> For some reason, on the straight course, horses rarely bunch on either rail, and as a conseqence there are probably fewer hard luck stories than any other flat course.<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.