- This topic has 53 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
If Rakti, for example, was banned from Racecourses, Horse Racing would been poorer for it. The first time these things happen, you are unlucky to lose out.
After the first time, this ‘previous’ is a risk which must be factored in to your stake / selection. There are many ways for your horse to lose you your cash, this is unfortunately one of them.
When Rakti ‘bolted’ pre-race at Royal Ascot, many people thought the horse had cost himself all reasonable chance of winning and should be withdrawn. Connections had obviously paid good money for entry, transport, and obviously made the decision to take their chance – and picked up a good bit of place money too. Were they correct to do so? I would say yes.
reet hard
Continuing to play devil’s advocate here, what would happen if a horse decided to amble out of the stalls/over the start line
a) 5 seconds after the others
b) 15 seconds after the others
c) 1 minute after the others?While it’s clearly been argued that the current solution isn’t perfect, it is reasonably clear that if a horse lines up it’s a runner. Yes, you probably can throw the oddity or two at me on that one (Bellvano at Kempton comes to mind) but it’s a good deal more clear cut.
Rob
reet hard
Continuing to play devil’s advocate here, what would happen if a horse decided to amble out of the stalls/over the start line
a) 5 seconds after the others
b) 15 seconds after the others
c) 1 minute after the others?While it’s clearly been argued that the current solution isn’t perfect, it is reasonably clear that if a horse lines up it’s a runner. Yes, you probably can throw the oddity or two at me on that one (Bellvano at Kempton comes to mind) but it’s a good deal more clear cut.
Rob
A Runner in each case , but if he does it again BANNED
In the case of c} i would depend on if it was a 5f sprint else they might have allready finished
reet hard
Continuing to play devil’s advocate here, what would happen if a horse decided to amble out of the stalls/over the start line
a) 5 seconds after the others
b) 15 seconds after the others
c) 1 minute after the others?While it’s clearly been argued that the current solution isn’t perfect, it is reasonably clear that if a horse lines up it’s a runner. Yes, you probably can throw the oddity or two at me on that one (Bellvano at Kempton comes to mind) but it’s a good deal more clear cut.
Rob
A Runner in each case , but if he does it again BANNED
reet hard’s argument was that horses that stay in the stalls should be treated as a non-runner. That was the argument I was replying to.
If a horse which leaves the stalls 5 secs, 15 secs or 1 minute after the start is treated as a runner, when is a horse which ‘does not leave the stalls’ treated as a non-runner?
Whether anyone should be BANNED (your capitals) or not is irrelevant to the direct question of runner/non-runner.
I haven’t yet seen anyone on this thread come up with a workable alternative that is a procedural improvement on the existing rule.
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
The rule, as it stands, is perfectly clear – if a horse enters the stalls but fails to exit when they open it is deemed to have been under orders and is therefore a runner.
What needs changing?
Given that every horse is trained to enter and leave stalls, they may be considered an intrinsic part of a race. If they form part of a race (a view further bolstered by the fact that reluctant participants are required to retrain before being allowed to run again), then why should any horse be deemed a non-runner if they are unable to manage them sufficiently well?
If you want to go down this route, then any horse who can’t jump should be deemed a non-runner if they fall over hurdles or fences, habitual slow-starters should be deemed non-runners over sprint trips and anything ridden by Jamie Spencer should be deemed a non-runner because it will sit stone last until a furlong out.
Many of racing’s regulations leave a lot to be desired in terms of clarity and consistency in application. This one does not.
The rule, as it stands, is perfectly clear – if a horse enters the stalls but fails to exit when they open it is deemed to have been under orders and is therefore a runner.
What needs changing?
Given that every horse is trained to enter and leave stalls, they may be considered an intrinsic part of a race. If they form part of a race (a view further bolstered by the fact that reluctant participants are required to retrain before being allowed to run again), then why should any horse be deemed a non-runner if they are unable to manage them sufficiently well?
If you want to go down this route, then any horse who can’t jump should be deemed a non-runner if they fall over hurdles or fences, habitual slow-starters should be deemed non-runners over sprint trips and anything ridden by Jamie Spencer should be deemed a non-runner because it will sit stone last until a furlong out.
Many of racing’s regulations leave a lot to be desired in terms of clarity and consistency in application. This one does not.
Fine no problem, keep the status quo keep the wonderfull rules which get flouted week in week out, the greyer the area better. Why improve this marvellous product that the vast majority of the general public mock because it is so BENT in their eyes. As long as those in the know have their snouts deep into the trough **** everybody else.
Doesn’t bother me i dont trust the sport enough to have large sums on. These occurrances just cement my feelings. The mental batttles are the fun part but when i thought i heard the trainer state on tv that the problem was over one would have expected somewhat more from the horse. I didn’t back either horse BTW!
I backed him2 weeks ago, and as with ant-post bets part of
the battle is actually seeing them run which obviously didn’t happen on this occasion. I accept the current situation, and at least there is no ambiguity
in the rules at present.However, I must be to blame, as i kid ye not, I was practising my ineptitude on the classical guitar Saturday morning and whipped through the sheet music for JS Bach’s BWV1068. To you and me "air on a G string",
which I believe was the music for the infamous Hamlet advert.Next Saturday I’ll leave the bloody thing in the case.
Fine no problem, keep the status quo keep the wonderfull rules which get flouted week in week out, the greyer the area better.
What precisely is grey about a rule which says once a horse enters the stalls it is declared a runner? That seems pretty unambiguous to me!!
How is this rule "flouted week-in, week-out?"
Doesn’t bother me i dont trust the sport enough …….
Clearly you are one of those who believes the sport is bent then. In which case why do you bother following it?
These occurrances just cement my feelings.
So are you suggesting the horse stayed in the stalls deliberately or with the other one the horse was deliberately made to rear in the stalls?
If so where is your evidence or are you just making the suggestion that a corrupt practice is being carried out because of a feeling in your water?
i thought i heard the trainer state on tv that the problem was over one would have expected somewhat more from the horse.
As I was not watching theTV coverage I cannot comment on what a trainer may or may not have said.
However no person could be 100% certain that such a problem was cured. You can stalls test a horse at home until you are blue in the face, but at home you cannot recreate the buzz and atmosphere of the racecourse and that will freak some horses out.
I don’t think anybody on this forum would be naive enough to suggest the sport is 100% clean.
However it is all too easy to make unfounded allegations of corruption or rule breaking without a shread of evidence and in my view that is just as pernicious and bad for the sport as the corruption itself.
- Total Posts 17716
What precisely is grey about a rule which says once a horse enters the stalls it is declared a runner? That seems pretty unambiguous to me!!
I doubt that is actually the rule, and can think of any number of reasons why a horse may be taken out of the stalls without coming under starters orders.
There’s also a certain ambiguity when a NH horse is deemed a starter even though it never got within 20 yards of the start, which would never have been acceptable previously – before R4 deductions had an effect on racing’s income.I think its totally bent IMO.
I love a mug punt thats why i bother, i enjoy picking my selections pitting my wit against the impossible. I’m a very confused pessimist
I went off track with my rant thanks for bothering to read it. Do i really need to list strange occurances that occur in racing. The endless list of repeat errors and limp smacks on the wrist. Trainers excuses that change after a coup come on. Jockeys that might as well be sat on backwards doing a crossword in some races.
I in no way meant to infer that there was anything shady in these 2 incidents. What was meaning is that as these type of events pile up on top of the more headline type it is more fuel for the fire for the the non racing public. Surely a gesture in cases like these would help change this type of opinon. Of course serious (successfull) action in the other cases would help even more.
What precisely is grey about a rule which says once a horse enters the stalls it is declared a runner? That seems pretty unambiguous to me!!
I doubt that is actually the rule, and can think of any number of reasons why a horse may be taken out of the stalls without coming under starters orders.
There’s also a certain ambiguity when a NH horse is deemed a starter even though it never got within 20 yards of the start, which would never have been acceptable previously – before R4 deductions had an effect on racing’s income.
In terms of flat races a horse is deemed to be under starters orders if they are in the stalls when the gate opens. The starter will can withdraw a horse which has entered the stalls and then becomes unruly.
Agree NH races are much more difficult – I wish I knew the answer.
Clearly you are one of those who believes the sport is bent then. In which case why do you bother following it?
As you obviously think it is straight, What percentage of races has EVERY runner running to achieve its best finishing position, with EVERY jockey trying to do the same, with EVERY trainer placing them as to achieve their best running on that horses optimum preferences.
Clearly you are one of those who believes the sport is bent then. In which case why do you bother following it?
As you obviously think it is straight, What percentage of races has EVERY runner running to achieve its best finishing position, with EVERY jockey trying to do the same, with EVERY trainer placing them as to achieve their best running on that horses optimum preferences.
If you bother to read what I said I did not suggest racing is 100% straight, nobody would even suggest that.
I probably watch 1,000 races live on course every year and of those I probably see no more than 25-30 races where I see horses "performing" in a manner where I would expect questions to be asked by the stewards and there is no obvious explanation. It you look at a race impartially there is often a plausible reason why a horse may not perform well.
I would say in majority of the cases the Stewards do enquire, where the stewards do not enquire, I do ask why there was not an enquiry and I do get a response. One problem nowadays, and I think it is something the BHA need to look at, is it is not always announced publicly when the stewards are holding an enquiry.
In terms of trainers running horses over incorrect distances – that is impossible to answer. However the onus is in the person betting to do his or her homework. Clues are there from watching previous performances, looking at breeding and, yes, knowing which trainers have "previous". Equally, however before tarring all trainers, there are occasions where trainers genuinely do not know the optimum trip for a horse until they have had a few runs in race conditions. Of course there is nothing in the rules of racing to say a horse has to run over an optimum trip.
Paul what you say is probably correct but not everybody has the ability to distinguish between the facts and therefore unfortunately they choose the "bent" way of thinking. I am not trying to be awkward but racings profile in the general public’s eyes is very poor. Society has dumbed down a great deal in my lifetime so it will get worse. You could say why should racing raise its standards when all others are falling, i just think it would nice to at least appear to be doing something to modernise the sport, apart from after race music events. Why should Don’t Panic be allowed in the stalls again?
Maybe it should be void for betting purposes!
untill it’s problems stop or it is banned.
Why should Don’t Panic be allowed in the stalls again?
Maybe it should be void for betting purposes!
untill it’s problems stop or it is banned.
Chances are it will get a ban until it passes a racecourse stalls test – I have not had a chance to check if such a ban has been applied in his case – if I get time to check I will (obviously a bit busy this week Folkestone today then Liverpool the rest of the week).
As opposed to being void for betting purposes you will probably find he is available at a longer price than he would be, so there is an "advantage" for those backing him and wanting to take a chance he will run. Again the "track record" is available for all to see so people have a choice as to whether they back him or not in future.
BTW I do see where you are coming from in terms of perception. The reality is whatever racing does will never be enough for some people. Racing, in many eyes, will always be tainted because of its relationship with betting.
Why should Don’t Panic be allowed in the stalls again?
Maybe it should be void for betting purposes!
untill it’s problems stop or it is banned.
It costs a lot of money to keep a racehorse in training, it’s hardly fair to be told your horse cannot run again because it’s failed to come out of the stalls only twice. As for betting that is a matter of personal choice, how would you ever know if his problems had stopped?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.