- This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Great Leighs today was virtually fogbound. Brief glimpses of horses, impossible to distinguish colours and only clearish vision less than 100yards from the winning post. Racegoers are expected to pay for this shambles. Race executive only seemed concerned about the welfare of the horses and jockeys in deciding whether to go ahead. They should adopt the same criteria as football referees. If it’s not possible to see each goal the match is abandoned. Race meetings should not go ahead if punters can’t see the start and the rest of the racecourse. To offset the cost of travelling etc for trainers, jockeys etc. they should purchase insurance indemnity.
Can’t agree Ken; there is a rule about how much visibility there should be and that is adhered to. Punters couldn’t care less as a rule as long as they can see the finish. It’s certainly preferable to being sent home.
You don’t get much of a view anyway at GL so it wouldn’t have made much difference if you were at the course.
- Total Posts 17716
Today’s events at Great Leighs could hardly be considered satisfactory.
Derek Thompson interviewed three of the jockeys after the first race and the range of opinions was, to be honest, quite unbelievable. If you could see further than half-a-furlong I’d have been surprised, but whilst Liam Jones thought that conditions weren’t suitable for racing, George Baker said everything was fine.
If everyone was happy that horses and jockeys weren’t in any significant danger, then surely the wider impact of being able to bet with belief had to be considered? The implications of racing when the viewing public can’t see anything until the very end of the race aside, could the confidence levels of opposing jockeys (given the adverse conditions) not be a determining factor?
Evaluating form is one thing, but second-guessing which jockeys have eaten their carrots is quite another.
I suppose I was thinking more about the thousands of punters faced with grey screens at home. Perhaps I’m on my own in wishing to see the particular point in the race at which my money goes down the drain. To not be able to see the race in its entirety is, to me, a pointless exercise. You might just as well invest your money in a fruit machine or a scratch card. Surely it’s not just about outcomes, isn’t it more about being able to see how the race unfolded, tactics, etc.?
Can the powers that be that oversee racing to ensure the sport is free of skullduggery, honestly say that today they were able to see every nuance of every race and have that documented on video? If not, then racing should not have gone ahead.
Newbie here so first off Hi
Have to agree with Ken that it is ridiculous to put on a sporting event that attendees have paid to see if the fog is that bad that visibility is 100 yards.
If some jockeys feel it’s unsafe that has to influence their race riding so we don’t have a true contest.
While there are some who may just want to see the outcome, as a fan of the sport I want to see how the race unfolds.
I watched a sprint at that meeting, the jockeys needed headlights, i bet the horses would have rather not been asked too run in those conditions.
It was ridiculous but I was delighted to see Matsunosuke emerge from the fog miles clear! Mind you, who’s to say he jumped in on the home turn as i couldn’t see a thing!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.