- This topic has 742 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Wallace – you stated the following -<br>’The owner and trainer of a horse are entitled to keep all information about the horse private. Punters have no rights in this’
This is not true according to the racing rules so how can you state that other people should start living in the real world when clearly it is you who is living in fantasy land.
Wallace is not living in fantasy land. He’s on the inside, within the real world of racing where information is privy to those who belong.
Wallace is living in fantasy land as far as the rules of racing are concerned. Obviously there is certain information that should only be known to the owner but it is the ‘cheating’ which annoys punters and this is the problem and the reason why punters are finding other sports to bet on which is to the detriment of racing.
Well said Nor,<br>People need to get real and realise that racing is an esoteric activity run largely by and for the benefit of those "in the know" i.e. with access to priveliged inside information . This includes owners (some of which expect info on other people’s horses in the yard) , trainers, stable employees and those paying the latter for info. <br>Anyone else comes a poor second.<br>Enjoy a harmless day out if you happen to go racing or have a little flutter by all means but live in the real world
I would be astounded if people with very close connections to the stable of David Barron didn’t make it pay from punting the yard’s horses.
in the "real world" business looks after its customers and does not take this p**s
out of themFor too long racing has acted (and some here seem to believe it too) that punter involvement is simply a granted priviledge
oddly enough punters are starting to disagree…
if the "insiders" are happy to see such actions as Faheys contribute to a drift towards betting on other sports, then they are not living in the "real world" are they?
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from SwallowCottage on 6:31 pm on Sep. 20, 2006[br]Wallace is wrong with his statement and obviously knows little about horse racing. <br>
To be brutally honest, SC, judging solely from the posts on this thread, Wallace knows the time of day much better than you are ever likely to!<br>Horse racing was, is, and always will be subject to subterfuge whenever there is money bet on it, tote monopoly or not, handicap system or not; were it not so, there would be no market!
EC<br> 2 points. Trainers do land gambles for their patrons; day in,day out: it is naive to think that many of them are obvious from the betting market.<br> I have a very good friend who had a horse with R. Fahey, bought specifically to land a touch, which it eventually did, and recouped more than a years costs, which should answer your question. <br> Still doesn’t make Fonthill road any more acceptable though.
Reet hard is also wrong with his statement and obviously knows less about horse racing than Wallace does;)
At a time when KF and a lorry load of other jocks are under suspicion of skullduggery, racing needs to pull together.
In pure public relations terms, Richard Fahey’s statement on the Friday afternoon could have been:
"He’s been disappointing this season. We don’t know why, but the horse has seen a back man and it seems to have sparked him up a little bit. He worked well last Sunday and he’s in better form than last time. He’ll run well."
Instead, we got nothing like this. Silence. What’s the goodwill going to cost? 12’s instead of 16s? I wouldn’t mind if i was an owner.
Instead of the name Fahey being associated with the words open and honest; now, the name Fahey and words Constructive Omission are associated, rightly or wrongly.
It isn’t about the interests of the owner in this case, Wallace. It’s racing again in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. Three sentences could have sorted it.
EC, I have no intention of naming trainers for you. If you can’t work out gambling yards then that’s your problem.
There are lots of trainers working like this as most of them need to land gambles to run a viable business. The bare training fees for most horses provide very little profit for the trainers.
As reet said, not all gambles are checkable to see if the market moved. The biggest gamble I landed involved a horse that moved from 4/1 to 10/1 in the oncourse market. The only losers were six of the major bookmakers and one oncoure bookie who laid me ten monekys when the horses had jumed the first hurdle. <br>
(Edited by Wallace at 10:52 pm on Sep. 20, 2006)
There are limits to what we, the punters, can demand or expect in terms of information relating to a horses well-being. There are certain things we will never know and I think most of us understand that. Should we be privy to the results of every gallop at home? Will we ever be made aware of all the niggling injuries a horse has and what stage he’s at in his minor recuperations? I think not.
One thing they could do though. A horses fitness is correlated, generally, to his weight. "we’ve got him at his racing weight" you’ve heard them say. Well let’s expose the times when they’re NOT at their racing weight and ask why.
WEIGH THE HORSES. Every trainer worth his salt does and so, quite easily, could every racecourse. It should be a condition of their license to hold race meetings.
"Thou shalt weigh every rachehorse not more than two hours before the off time of that horses race and thou shalt report the weights to the authorities who shall, in a professional manner, analyse these weights in order to identify where trainers are either incapable of judging a horses fitness, in which case we shall withdraw his license, or to help identify those trainers who are at it. The results shall also be reported in the media (preferably exclusively on the Racing Forum) where punters can utilise this information to help them spot likely winners".
<br>For – punters
Against – Trainers (obviously), racecourses (costs, hassle), racing authorities (costs, can of worms), owners (again, obviously)
What do you think the chances are? <br>
EC, I have taken part in an exchange of views but do not intend to name any trainers I consider excellent at preparing a horse for a gamble. One of the most respected members of this forum knows the full details of the example I quoted. I would not embarrass him by asking for a public statement.
No doubt you will hang on this trivial point, continue your rant and ignore the substantive point.<br>
Standard at Greyhound races, Cormack. You will all know that if a dog deviates significantly in weight, (in both directions), from it’s previous run, it cannot race. I’m not sure how practical it is, though, for horses.
I’m not saying that Mr Fahey should have done a TV documentary on the progress of Fonthill Road. I don’t expect that. It ain’t going to happen. Jim Goldie hardly waxed lyrical the previous day on the well being of Geojimali, but he certainly did afterward.
I would argue though, that some advance indication that Fonthill Road was somewhere in the ball park of his Stewards Cup runner up form, is good PR in todays day and age.
There is ample scope in both the Sportsman and the RP to let punters know the score, allowing them to factor in a potentially rejuvenated top sprint handicapper into their calculations. And we all know how strong Ayr’s betting market is. The owner would not have lost out, if at all. It smacks of a seedy, downbeat approach to our magnificent sport. The type of self-interested, damn the punter type behaviour which in the long term will, as Clive says, see punter after punter heading for football.
I’d personally like to see riding tactics published in advance, but that’s another story.
(Edited by Maxilon 5 at 11:04 pm on Sep. 20, 2006)
EC,
How can you quantify what consitutes a successful gambling stable please? The number of times their horses that shorten win?
"As most people reading that will no doubt presume he’s talking about me, I would just like to confirm it’s not."
Shouldn’t there have been an emoticon in there somewhere, Stav?;)
Most punters accept and understand that owners should be privy to certain information regarding their horses but it is ludicrous for Wallace to state that ‘ The owner and trainer of a horse are entitled to keep all information about the horse private. Punters have no rights in this’.
Horse racing needs both the punters and the owners in order to thrive but the reality is that more and more punters are gambling on other sports and unless shortsighted and contemptuous people like Wallace ( who doesn’t even understand racing rules ) and reet hard ( who doesn’t even understand how betting markets work ) change their attitudes then the horse racing industry in this country will struggle.
<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.