- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I know it’s hard to tell ricky but Bittar & Roy were in different jobs and worked in tandem for 18 months. Steve Harman took over from Roy as chairman.
After a promising start when he sorted the whip fiasco out initiated by Jamie Stier he disappointed.
In the bookmakers pocket, still running races for 2 grand and doing absolutely nothing about the hundreds of non runners.
What has he done to "Look out for punters" that he promised?
I refer you to James Toller’s letter lower down, hopefully Bittar will take his fellow Aussie Stier with him.
Well, the day it’s announced that bittar is off catterick has to scrap a seller due to lack of runners so enough said onus he’s made progress.
Eddie , I knew that , but they were the front men , the public face, the voice of authority .
They were both clueless …
Progress made zero ….can the jockey club do any better ??
Can imagine the large fields in the winter for 0/55 and 0/50 …bookie fodder , no problems there , that’s the state of British racing nowadays ….how could that ever happen anywhere else ??
imo
The Racing Post has stated "We cannot carry Claiming prices or Jockeys on the Sidelines because the BHA will no longer make the information available to us".
Both useful bits of information to see at a glance.
Anyone sat at home wanting to claim a horse had the price and claiming phone number at their fingertips, will some of them bother now with the incovenience involved?
It is also useful to see which jockeys are out of action and for how long.
Which numpty has thought this up and what can possibly be the reason?
Prize money in France, for instance, where a "Tote Monopoly" exists, far exeeds the prize money levels in this country.
The chances of a Tote monopoly in this country, whereby all of the net profit is reinvested into racing, disappeared with the sale of the Tote to Betfred.
The Tote, under Betfred ownership, is now run by former high ranking SIS senior managers, such as Phil Siers and Brent Dolan. SIS was set up in 1987 to provide live pictures into Betting shops and is to all intents and purposes a bookmaker owned company to this day.
There was a brilliant interview with Andy Stewart on ATR a couple of months back where he described in great detail the fight between the Fred Done bid and the bid of his group of non-bookmaker investors.
If anybody believes that the current model is designed to benefit anybody other than bookmakers (as opposed to owners, for instance) they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Racing in the UK is like a fledgling seagull which never has the courage to allow its "parent" (the bookmaking industry) abandon it. If only it did, the sport in this country would become far heather.
A tote monopoly wouldn’t be viable in this country. People are not used to that sort of betting. Like it or not racing needs the bookmakers more than they need racing. The problem for racing is people just don’t like it and are starting to prefer betting on other sports because they are interested in them. They have a tote monopoly as such in America but racing is in trouble there.
Part of the problem is the present racing fans resistance to change. Anytime any kind of change is mentioned people are up in arms about it. Punters also have themselves to blame a little. They need to stop using internet accounts with bookmakers who base their internet business in places like Gibralter so avoiding levy payments.
I asked BHA why their own RSS feeds are no longer updated. They said they don’t own the rights to their own information.
Someone has a screw loose somewhere.The Racing Post has stated "We cannot carry Claiming prices or Jockeys on the Sidelines because the BHA will no longer make the information available to us".
I assume the Claiming Prices referred are those that determine the race weights. Surely anyone with a spare couple of minutes can do what I used to do and work out the Claiming prices from the race weights? Or am I missing something?
Rob
I assume the Claiming Prices referred are those that determine the race weights. Surely anyone with a spare couple of minutes can do what I used to do and work out the Claiming prices from the race weights? Or am I missing something?
Rob
Yes, the point
Just think Rob, if only the BHA & Racing Post had only known what you know.
The BHA could have stopped providing such information for publication years ago and Racing Post could have stopped printing it, thus saving themselves considerable newsprint.
Makes you wonder why the Racing Post have issued a statement saying the BHA will no longer provide such information and why the BHA have stopped providing it.
Have you any thoughts?
Surely the ‘point’ is that the Post don’t need the BHA to supply the info when they can work it out for themselves.
They have never included the claiming price in the online race card anway, but they do provide all the necessary information in the race conditions to enable anyone to calculate the price, so what’s stopping them?
You tell me?
It states in every days Racing Post "We cannot carry Claiming prices or Jockeys on the Sidelines because the BHA will no longer make it available to us. We apologise for the inconvenience".
The conditions for the claimer at Catterick on Tuesday stated "For horses reassessed since the publication of the qualifying list entry, the excess in any rating above the rating band shall be added to the horses’ price".
While I’m sure that is meat and drink to the likes of you and rob I would imagine it’s better to get the information on actual claiming prices from the official source to eliminate error.
Much simpler when the BHA supplied the info and all the claiming prices appeared at the bottom of the race.
Should the Racing Post also know the Jockeys on the Sidelines without the information being supplied by the BHA?
The BHA should be promoting the game and trying to create interest, not withholding racing information from people without good reason.
Should the Racing Post also know the Jockeys on the Sidelines without the information being supplied by the BHA?
The BHA should be
promoting the game
and trying to create interest, not
withholding racing information
from people without good reason.
May be the BHA are
"promoting the game"
through
"withholding racing information"
Eddie? Or at least that might be their reasoning (whether right or wrong).
ie By not giving the animal rights brigade a list every day of jockeys banned (so many days) for so called "
abuse
of the
whip
".
May be they feel newcomers will be put off our sport by such a list in racing’s daily?
Do wish they’d use different language, in the vast majority of cases hardly "abuse" and hardly a "whip" any more.
I wonder if they will come back at a later date with some other description to the same offences. Any new description will be easier to get away with if not
immediately
replacing a more forceful vocabulary.
May be instead of "abuse of the whip" call it "over-use of the encourager".
Value Is EverythingFor the most part I think Bittar has done a reasonable job.
Whip rules work a lot better now than they once did. Although I would still like disqualification in the worst cases if stewards believe the result affected by the offence. That would help to stop deliberate rule breaking in valuable races…
And… in all stewards enquiries benefit of the doubt should go to the
wronged
party. eg If stewards believe the probabilities of winning before interferance took place was 60% winner to 40% runner-up, then the runner-up should get the race. If below 40% no change.
Also, in cases where the winner’s interference has cost a wronged horse a place… That wronged horse’s connections and punters should get paid out their just deserts from the winner’s connections prize money and winning punter’s profits (like a rule 4)… without demotion of the actual placed horses.
Professional stewards panels to be brought in.
48 hour decs should be done away with, impossible in a British climate.
At least Bittar’s changed the "bash the bookmaker" mentality of previous incumbants.
Did a good job of the Zarooni/Butler affairs imo.
Value Is EverythingMay be the BHA are
"promoting the game"
through
"withholding racing information"
Eddie? Or at least that might be their reasoning (whether right or wrong).
ie By not giving the animal rights brigade a list every day of jockeys banned (so many days) for so called "
abuse
of the
whip
".
May be they feel newcomers will be put off our sport by such a list in racing’s daily?
Do wish they’d use different language, in the vast majority of cases hardly "abuse" and hardly a "whip" any more.
I wonder if they will come back at a later date with some other description to the same offences. Any new description will be easier to get away with if not
immediately
replacing a more forceful vocabulary.
May be instead of "abuse of the whip" call it "over-use of the encourager".
Quite an imagination you have there Gingertipster or have you been drinking? But hey ho don’t let the facts get in the way of a little bit of fantasy.
If someone, eg the Animal Rights brigade required information about whip abuse etc surely they’d be disappointed if you pointed them in the direction of the Jockeys on the Sidelines column when it appeared in the Racing Post.
This merely confined itself to the length of time and dates when a jockey would be absent accompanied by a (s) for suspended or (i) for injured with no details at all of the offences committed or otherwise.
Meanwhile if the Animal Rights brigade etc needed detail about your whip abuse etc, doubt they’d be as naive as you appear to be and would just go on the BHA website where all whip offences are covered in great detail.
Don’t think people would pay £2.10/£2.40 a day to look at column that told you nothing about the offences when they can look online for free and get great detail of the offences.
Keep dreaming son.
I would still like disqualification in the worst cases if stewards believe the result affected by the offence. That would help to stop deliberate rule breaking in valuable races…
And… in all stewards enquiries benefit of the doubt should go to the
wronged
party. eg If stewards believe the probabilities of winning before interferance took place was 60% winner to 40% runner-up, then the runner-up should get the race. If below 40% no change.
Also, in cases where the winner’s interference has cost a wronged horse a place… That wronged horse’s connections and punters should get paid out their just deserts from the winner’s connections prize money and winning punter’s profits (like a rule 4)… without demotion of the actual placed horses.
Professional stewards panels to be brought in.
48 hour decs should be done away with, impossible in a British climate.
Very "interesting" to some I suppose Gingertipster but not sure how much of it has to do with Bittar’s tenure but then again that is common with you isn’t it?
How would the stewards enquiry go?
Lord Faultenroy -"Well m’lud I considered it a 37% chance of affecting the result"
Lord Ponsonby – "No m’lud I would definitely have it as a 43% chance"
Faultenroy – "What do we do now m’lud?"
Ponsonby – "Well we could ask the stipe but he doesn’t know what we’re talking about, best to either toss a coin or ask Gingertipster".
Faultenroy – "Toss a coin".
I disagree with Ginger 100 per cent , no change there !!!
whilst as always respecting his opinion …the acid test for Bittar , is what is his legacy …what does he leave behind ??
so as I see it ,the biggest legacy has been co operation with the bookies , yes ..whatever they wanted they got ,
An unpublished report on the Zarooni affair to protect Sheik Mo
The butler affair , and the other newmarket trainers who got off all neatly brushed under the carpet
Trainer Jarvis , bankrupt for the second time…license handed over to son …as if that changes anything
Lastly the granting of a license to Fergal Lynch , the icing on the cake , to prove that integrity really does not exist
Whatever Punters make of that I just dont know , but its his legacy
Shameful in my opinion , we are no better off now that before
imo
I would still like disqualification in the worst cases if stewards believe the result affected by the offence. That would help to stop deliberate rule breaking in valuable races…
And… in all stewards enquiries benefit of the doubt should go to the
wronged
party. eg If stewards believe the probabilities of winning before interferance took place was 60% winner to 40% runner-up, then the runner-up should get the race. If below 40% no change.
Also, in cases where the winner’s interference has cost a wronged horse a place… That wronged horse’s connections and punters should get paid out their just deserts from the winner’s connections prize money and winning punter’s profits (like a rule 4)… without demotion of the actual placed horses.
Professional stewards panels to be brought in.
48 hour decs should be done away with, impossible in a British climate.
Very "interesting" to some I suppose Gingertipster but not sure how much of it has to do with Bittar’s tenure but then again that is common with you isn’t it?
How would the stewards enquiry go?
Lord Faultenroy -"Well m’lud I considered it a 37% chance of affecting the result"
Lord Ponsonby – "No m’lud I would definitely have it as a 43% chance"
Faultenroy – "What do we do now m’lud?"
Ponsonby – "Well we could ask the stipe but he doesn’t know what we’re talking about, best to either toss a coin or ask Gingertipster".
Faultenroy – "Toss a coin".
What is and is not under the Bittar’s remit is no doubt up for question. Others (including yourself) have used other things that may or may not be in Bittar’s remit. I’ve included stuff just in case.
All I am saying Eddie, is if it is a borderline decision the benefit of the doubt should go to the
wronged
party.
If you stop and think about it, my percentages must actually be similar to what the rules are
now
.
Only with the winner (fouling party) getting the "benefit of the doubt". ie It is right now – not enough
for stewards to believe the wronged party was the "probable (
better than 50%
) winner, because at 51, 52, 53, 54% etc stewards still have to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the winner. Does it sease to be a "benefit of the doubt" in a 45/55 case? Or 40/60? Or 35/65? Where would you bring down the axe on "benefit of the doubt" Eddie?
If you don’t like me using percentages then think of it this way:
Stewards should consider which horse would’ve been the probable winner (better than 50%, bugger!
using percentages again ) at time of interference. However, if the stewards are finding it difficult to decide (in borderline
cases) the
"benefit of the doubt"
should go to the
wronged
party…
This way (
in effect
) the wronged party will get the result when it looks a 55/45 if not 60/40 decision.
Result!!!
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.