- This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
What a surprise 3 non runners in the 5F seller at Beverley and there all drawn very low!!
No doubt they will all produce legitimate vets certificates but I think this is wrong. At the very least if a horse is a non runner then it shouldn’t be allowed to run for a certain length of time afterwards (7 days?)
It’s a farce at Beverley. If the draw bias is so bad that horses pull out if drawn unfavourably you really need to take a look at what you can do about it. I actively avoid Beverley (and certain races at Chester) due to this factor.<br>To be honest, if the draw is so important no one should be backing these horses and rule 4s should be minimal, but it can really put a spanner in the works if you’re betting for a place, you’ll never be sure what odds you’ll get.
I don’t blame owners and trainers for withdrawing because of the draw, why don’t Beverley show a bit of initiative and try the stalls on the stand side?<br>Think all horses withdrawn with a vets should be barred from running in any further races for which they’re entered.
Quote: from yeats on 1:23 pm on May 22, 2007[br]I don’t blame owners and trainers for withdrawing because of the draw, why don’t Beverley show a bit of initiative and try the stalls on the stand side?<br>Think all horses withdrawn with a vets should be barred from running in any further races for which they’re entered.
A sensible idea.
However, I don’t think this would be popular with trainers. They go to Beverley hoping for a good draw, if they don’t get it then the horse doesn’t run. I don’t think they’d want the playing field levelled out, they’d rather have the advantage of getting the draw at some point themselves…
They did experiment a few years ago with placing the stalls stands’ side and, if memory serves, it only resulted in the bias being totally reversed to those drawn low, so the trial was abandoned.
A thorough root-and-branch review and investigation into the process of issuing vets’ certificates is long overdue.
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from Drone on 4:45 pm on May 22, 2007[br]They did experiment a few years ago with placing the stalls stands’ side and, if memory serves, it only resulted in the bias being totally reversed to those drawn low, so the trial was abandoned.<br>
Don’t doubt what you say, Drone, but given the configuration of the Beverley 5f, they can’t have given it a long enough trial?<br>I know the draw changes on softer ground, but on normal going, any high drawn horse heading for the inside rail has less far to travel than horses sticking to the stand side. <br>Maybe they should give it another go?<br>
How long a trial do you need to prove things when Alan Berry yaks are winning from the one box?
Quote: from Drone on 4:45 pm on May 22, 2007[br]They did experiment a few years ago with placing the stalls stands’ side and, if memory serves, it only resulted in the bias being totally reversed to those drawn low, so the trial was abandoned.<br> ÂÂÂ
One meeting sufficient Drone? How many do you consider drawn high would have been withdrawn today if the stalls had been on the stands side? Thats not to mention that some of the crowding on the inside rail would have been negated.
(Edited by yeats at 6:28 pm on May 22, 2007)
Quote: from yeats on 6:15 pm on May 22, 2007[br]
<br>One meeting sufficient Drone? <br>
Dug out the race: it was on 22/7/02, 12 runners, first 3 drawn 1,2,7 at 25/1, 12/1, 33/1 and Glenn is correct the winner was one of the Hulk of Cockerham’s.
The race was a Claimer run on good-to-soft so a) at the weights it was likely the range of abilities was greater than if a handicap and b) as the high bias tends to be less pronounced with give, it’s probable that the experiment didn’t prove anything at all. So I agree it would be worth trialling again with handicaps run on a firmer surface.<br> <br>The 5f course dog-leg is the obvious and oft stated cause of the high bias but the camber running from inside to stands plays an important part too.
(Edited by Drone at 8:32 pm on May 22, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.