- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wouldn’t you have more chance of getting a reply by emailing the BHA directly with your moaning, rather than posting on a forum under a log in name? (assuming eddie case isn’t your real name)
deep sensation,
I’m not particularly bothered about getting a reply from the BHA via email thanks, you seem more concerned about the BHA getting involved, maybe you could do it. I prefer to post on a racing forum about race clashes as I see fit. If you don’t like it, tough.
I notice the last you posted was about 6 weeks ago when you received an email from Matron, not surprised with some of the carp you post. I mean, what’s been your contribution here? Just moaning about another posters postings.Why don’t the BHA monitor French, German, Italian, South African & American Racing? All of which can be seen in the betting shops.
Now there’s a point.
I’m sure it’s generally believed that people in bookmakers shops at that time of day on a weekday will probably bet on anything.
So why not have a bigger gap between the last daytime race & the first evening one? I’m sure the bookies would find something to show.Ok Eddie, so just to confirm, you are going to moan for moaning’s sake.
Maybe I’ll start a thread entitled "eddie case is moaning again because the BHA let races clash, again"
As for your point about my post 6 weeks ago & getting an email from "Matron" (whoever he or she is) I assume you are implying that I was in some kind of trouble on here. Sorry to disappoint you but I received an email which was in regards to a member I had reported, confirming that the matter had been dealt with.
Ok Eddie, so just to confirm, you are going to moan for moaning’s sake.
Maybe I’ll start a thread entitled "eddie case is moaning again because the BHA let races clash, again"
I would imagine that since it’s a racing forum you can start a thread about anything to do with racing which is what I did.
There’s plenty of moaning about various issues on here, some interest me, some don’t, probably wont contribute to them that don’t, might I suggest you do the same.If I were to start a thread about people moaning on here, it’s all I would ever do. I’d have to give up my job & everything.
how about starting a thread where we are happy with things & can actually praise people? Or does that go against the whole ethics of a forum?
I still wonder if this "disease" of moaning is a British thing or something worldwide.
Would there be any contributions (especially from eddie) if a thread was started with the title "BHA don’t let any races clash again"?
how about starting a thread where we are happy with things & can actually praise people? Or does that go against the whole ethics of a forum?
I still wonder if this "disease" of moaning is a British thing or something worldwide.
Would there be any contributions (especially from eddie) if a thread was started with the title "BHA don’t let any races clash again"?
Have you got a screw loose?
how about starting a thread where we are happy with things & can actually praise people? Or does that go against the whole ethics of a forum?
I still wonder if this "disease" of moaning is a British thing or something worldwide.
Would there be any contributions (especially from eddie) if a thread was started with the title "BHA don’t let any races clash again"?
Have you got a screw loose?
Positive, happy thinking has no place on a forum or, possibly, British society!
As for your point about my post 6 weeks ago & getting an email from "Matron" (whoever he or she is) I assume you are implying that I was in some kind of trouble on here. Sorry to disappoint you but I received an email which was in regards to a member I had reported, confirming that the matter had been dealt with.
Just be grateful I’m not reporting you for keep going off topic on my thread.
As for your point about my post 6 weeks ago & getting an email from "Matron" (whoever he or she is) I assume you are implying that I was in some kind of trouble on here. Sorry to disappoint you but I received an email which was in regards to a member I had reported, confirming that the matter had been dealt with.
Just be grateful I’m not reporting you for keep going off topic on my thread.
I’m grateful for many things in life. Having a nobody on a forum not report me to another nobody is not one of them.
I’m grateful for many things in life. Having a nobody on a forum not report me to another nobody is not one of them.
Well, don’t worry about it I’m sure you’ll be able to put a post on subject on a positive thread before the night’s out.
Classic Winners – Owners Colours sounds a good one to me.I’ll look forward to your next moan when races clash. It could be tomorrow or 6 months away. But at least we know you are poised, ready at the keyboard to post when it does happen
FFS, Investigating Frankie for not riding that nag at Newbury because of the tariff. This great concern for punters when it suits them is very touching by the BHA but what about the many jockey changes at evening meetings which go unnoticed and punters don’t get informed about?
How about some punter representation on the BHA board?
The Frankie issue is hardly likely to be a regular occurrence and surely the BHA should be doing something more useful with their time.
Do they ever have investigations when racecourse stewards get something wrong like the Leicester ones last Monday (Unlimited) and appear not to even know the rules.
Millions of pounds at stake on every race but not even an announcement yet regards the error at Leicester.Do they ever have investigations when racecourse stewards get something wrong like the Leicester ones last Monday (Unlimited) and appear not to even know the rules.
Millions of pounds at stake on every race but not even an announcement yet regards the error at Leicester.Why do you think the decision is wrong?
The new rule states:-
10.5.1 the horse has been prevented from starting due to a faulty action of the starting stalls when the start was effected, or
10.5.2 the horse is riderless at the time the start was effected.When the gates opened the horse was on his haunches and the rider was not seated properly on the horse. I appreciate it is subjective but in this instance I believe it was right to declare the horse a non-runner under Rule 10.5.2
In this incident we were told the stewards came to the decision on the advice of the Stipe. I’m not sure where the balance in making such a decision lies – I have to confess when seeing it live I though the horse would be a runner – but having since seen it freeze frame there is sufficient doubt as to whether Guillambert was seated as the gates opened – presumably the Stipe gave the rider the benefit of the doubt.
Granted it was a much more ambiguous situation than that of Close To The Edge at the same course on April 16th where, again the horse was deemed a non-runner.
I can see why the BHA introduced the rule and I think it is good in principle, however it is also open to subjectivity an controversy as evidenced in this case.
With the Close To The Edge Case there was no subsequent discussion or complaint because there was no rule 4, with Unlimited there was a rule 4, so backers of the winner (myself included) and placed horses will have lost out.
The trouble with such a rule is, in most cases, whichever way the decision goes somebody will probably complain.
Should the new rule be scrapped?
A few years ago Silvoir promised us The Rabble were working on an information site detailing jockey changes, overweights and the like.
Nothing has materialised and when pressed he claims they don’t have the data rights to such information or some such.
Strange how Timeform, RUK, ATR, Racing Post etc report this info yet our glorious leaders cower in fear of a legal challenge!
You really do have to be a Group One Can’t Do organisation, and hate punters to boot, to come up with guff like this, implying that racecourses are waiting in the wings to sue them for millions the second they mention what jockey is actually on a horse!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.