- This topic has 29 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
The Chester May meeting offers the best racing has to offer – top quality fare in relaxed and elegant surroundings. So it’s worth sparing a thought this week for those who have been greeted with the no room at the inn sign as a result of the new field size limits there.
You might wonder why such limits were introduced, so I took the liberty of giving the racecourse and BHA a call to find out. There’s ample stabling at Chester, so that’s not the reason. Despite the tight nature of the track safety isn’t the reason either – plenty of room for runners in the Heritage handicap tommorow. Those mad conspiracy theorists who think that there might be some asserted attempt to implement the Modernisation of British racing document through the back door are also wrong as our friend Paul, the BHA spokesman, pointed out: the BHA definitely aren’t trying to get rid of 16 runner handicaps because he believes they yield more levy!
No, the reason is the wrong sort of stalls. They ordered brand new stalls which only fit 14/15 runners wide at those parts of the track where the starts of the non-heritage handicaps are located!
Ordering stalls which don’t fit the track. Another unfortunate oversight contributing to the 80% decline in the number of four place handicaps since the Modernisation of Racing was written and, allegedly, shelved…
- Total Posts 17716
The Chester May meeting offers the best racing has to offer – top quality fare in relaxed and elegant surroundings. So it’s worth sparing a thought this week for those who have been greeted with the no room at the inn sign as a result of the new field size limits there.
You might wonder why such limits were introduced, so I took the liberty of giving the racecourse and BHA a call to find out. There’s ample stabling at Chester, so that’s not the reason. Despite the tight nature of the track safety isn’t the reason either – plenty of room for runners in the Heritage handicap tommorow. Those mad conspiracy theorists who think that there might be some asserted attempt to implement the Modernisation of British racing document through the back door are also wrong as our friend Paul, the BHA spokesman, pointed out: the BHA definitely aren’t trying to get rid of 16 runner handicaps because he believes they yield more levy!
No, the reason is the wrong sort of stalls. They ordered brand new stalls which only fit 14/15 runners wide at those parts of the track where the starts of the non-heritage handicaps are located!
Ordering stalls which don’t fit the track. Another unfortunate oversight contributing to the 80% decline in the number of four place handicaps since the Modernisation of Racing was written and, allegedly, shelved…
Class Glenn, pure class.
The above, along with Kempton’s elastic safety limits and Arena Leisure’s "only being able to buy stalls in sets of 7" tells far more of the truth than any public relations guru could ever hope to paper over.
PMSL.In fairness, the one track where it makes little difference to you is Chester, especially in this new age of self-cert vet certificates. How many 16/17 runner hcaps retain the 4 places come post time anyway?
The stall ordering committee really messed up for connections at Chester, non-heritage handicap wise that is ..
TDK
From the trial period the Flatstats website looked into 1 horse being withdrawn from a 16 runner handicap they gave the figure at an alarming (for some) 53% of the time.
Far higher a percentage than a horse being withdrawn from a 15 runner handicap which I think was around 30%.Glenn
The next task is to enquire with an average attendance of 870 at Southwell the horse Not So yesterday was clipped in from evens to 10/11 yesterday after it had won.It was available on betfair @2.05 (21/20) as they left the stalls and the last show on A.T.R. was clearly evens.
May be the 870 or so there all backed the favourite as they went into the stalls but the betting suggested otherwise.
In fairness, the one track where it makes little difference to you is Chester, especially in this new age of self-cert vet certificates. How many 16/17 runner hcaps retain the 4 places come post time anyway?
Not many as the BHA, who are supposed to police the sport turn a blind eye to corruption when that corruption hurts punters.
Nobody with even a rudimentary grasp of statistics (I’m not the sure the BHA employs any such people) could deny that there is wholesale fraud with regard to vets’ certificates being issued for poorly drawn horses at the likes of Beverley and Chester. Not to worry – the BHA have an unofficial amnesty for such fraudsters: as long as the fraud works against punters you will get away with it.
No, the only solution to this wholesale fraud is an attempt to remove draw biases by watering or relocating stalls. Don’t think many punters were cheering that day at Beverley when an Alan Berry rag won from stall one. The only cheers were from those who orchestrated the coup.
How to get an Alan Berry camel home in three easy steps, no watering out of draw biases necessary:
1) converse with racing’s rulers
2) park the stalls in a completely different location in a deliberate attempt to negate a historical draw bias, while most punters are in the dark
3) drive your tractors on the ground in front of the Berry camel’s stall until it becomes a roadBeverley 22/7/02
1st Countrywide Dancer 25/1 (drawn 1)
2nd Warren Place 12/1 (drawn 2)The second slow time of the night left the strong suggestion that the ground was slower than the official verdict. The stalls were positioned on the stands side here to try and negate the bias of the draw, which has been staggeringly in favour of high-numbered horses all season.
The experiment seemed to swing the balance totally around with the first two home COUNTRYWIDE DANCER and Warren Place drawn 1 and 2 respectively. Winning rider Ted Durcan made good use of the position of the stalls, but cited the fact that tyre marks caused by vehicles going down the track produced a faster strip of ground, which is where he raced. He wouldn’t, of course, have been able to do that very easily, had the stalls been on the opposite side of the track.Beverley to keep stalls stands’ side in sprints
Published: 25/07/2002 (News) ROY BRIGGS
OFFICIALS at Beverley are to continue the experiment of placing the stalls for five-furlong races on the stands’ side in a bid to alleviate one of the most notorious draw biases in Britain.
The first trial, which took place in the two-year-old claimer on Monday evening, resulted in a surprise reversal in advantage, with the first two – both outsiders – drawn one and two.
Sally Iggulden, the racecourse manager, said yesterday: “It may just have been a one-off and we’ve decided to try it again next Tuesday, when we have two five-furlong races.
“It looked at first as if the change had worked because when the field reached the dog-leg turn, they were pretty much spread evenly across the track.
“I was pleased with the way the race went from the point of view that we didn’t have the first two going off like bullets sticking to the inside rail.”
Ted Durcan, who won the race on Countrywide Dancer, reported that the placing of stalls on the outside did make a difference, although he revealed that his mount had also been helped by being able to gallop along the tyre tracks where vehicles go up and down the course.
Iggulden added: “There was a little bit of faster ground on the outside rail where the service cars travel, but we are going to water this section to ensure the ground will all be the same.
“We feel we have got to do something to make it a more even playing field for the benefit of owners and trainers because, with the present draw bias, it is quite difficult to set up a horse for a five-furlong race at Beverley.
“We’ll see what happens on Tuesday, but I do have a few more ideas up my sleeve.
“We will also talk to the Jockey Club and see if they have any thoughts, while I’m keen for anyone in racing who has any suggestions to let me know.”An excellent piece Glenn, well written and researched.
Its a pity that people who accuse you of creating unfounded conspiracies dont offer up similar pieces of evidence to support their own position. Instead of casting meaningless aspersions around.
Dave – Glenn has peddled the theory that bookies give out "brown packets" to trainers to get horses withdrawn for many years now.
I’d like to see his "well researched" evidence of this…
In fact I recall an amusing thread where Glenn accused one particular trainer of doing just this – the late Jack Joseph if memory serves – only to delete all his posts on the thread when the respected forumite wit asked him to "put up or shut up".
Im sorry but to say Chester offers the best racing has to offer is like saying Ann Widecombe has the best that the porn industry has to offer.
I do go racing their a few times and its full of Scousers and Welsh all Oliver Twist and on the lawns ladies asleep having started on the ale at breakfast time.
The May meeting is good but Yorks meeting next week is far better as regards quality.
Last year instead of going to Chesters June Sat meeting i went to Windsor and enjoyed a more relaxing day out with a decent listed race and a nice chug down the Thames on the River Bus.
Dave – Glenn has peddled the theory that bookies give out “brown packets” to trainers to get horses withdrawn for many years now.
I’d like to see his “well researched” evidence of this…
In fact I recall an amusing thread where Glenn accused one particular trainer of doing just this – the late Jack Joseph if memory serves – only to delete all his posts on the thread when the respected forumite wit asked him to “put up or shut up”.
That’s a straightforward lie. I never made any accusations against Jack Joseph.
Why do you need the feel to lie? I’d also try to get that amnesia of yours seen to.
As for “brown packets”, whatever they may be, maybe you can come clean about any quid pro quo relationships your firm has had with certain connections. I won’t be holding my breath – honesty and integrity don’t seem to figure very highly in your world.
That’s a straightforward lie. I never made any accusations against Jack Joseph.
Why do you need the feel to lie? I’d also try to get that amnesia of yours seen to.
.LOL
Maybe if wit is about (or anyone else who participated in that comical thread) he could confirm that it is you suffering from amnesia.
No, I remember the thread you are alluding to. I suggested that a horsebox breaking down might be worthy of investigation. I never made any accusations against Jack Joseph.
Now, maybe you can answer my question. Have your firm ever had any quid pro quo relationships with connections during your period with them?
No, I remember the thread you are alluding to. I suggested that a horsebox breaking down might be worthy of investigation. I never made any accusations against Jack Joseph.
Mmm – bit of 1984 style changing of history here methinks. Do you admit you deleted your comments on the said thread? Why do that it if you were merely suggesting it may be worthy of investigation?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.