- This topic has 35 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I never particularly liked the man from what I have seen on TV of him as I do not know him. Likewise his sons would seem to take after him.
His comment about wind ops being declared beggar belief and shows a complete disregard for punters and racing in general.
He is quoted as saying “It will be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, a complete waste of time.”
Why will it be a waste of time. If he does not beleive in them do any of his horses have them. I do not know but I would bet some do.
If punters take heed or note of them is entirely up to them and the more information the better. His comment is what is wrong with racing in this day and age some trainers trying to be claok and dagger and seen to be hiding things to get one over on the bookies but invariably it also the betting public who lose out but it is them who help through their betting keep Mr Moore and his sons in a good job and way of life.
Racing does not need negative comments like that when all the authorites are doing is trying to help the people who like a bet.It’s not that Gary Moore has a “complete disregard for the punter” – and to say it is is defamatory.
It’s probable that the point Gary Moore is making is that in his opinion it’s not going to help punters because they won’t know how the particular horse is going to perform.
ie With different results from different horses. Sometimes a wind op allows a horse to improve a lot in form, sometimes a little, somethimes remains the same, sometimes it doesn’t work and the horse isn’t quite capable of its pre-wind op form and sometimes its wind is extremely bad and no longer capable of anything like its best.
So in saying “It will be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, a complete waste of time”; he’s saying that in his opinion knowing a horse has had a wind op will be useless for the punter.
Now you and I, Droffats; disagree with Moore, but that is his opinion and he’s entitled to it. Nothing to do with a “disregard for the punter”.
Value Is EverythingI agree with Gary Moore, it will be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Why would the authorities want to help punters when they benefit from them losing?
Because the authorities need to do their best to ensure punter confidence in the sport, otherwise punters may well turn elsewhere.
Value Is EverythingLucinda Russell’s thrown an unknown cat among the pigeons. She says “If a horse really does make a noise then the horse needs an operation. The chance of that operation improving the horse is very high and it would be well worth backing the horse.”
She’s confirming that some owners and trainers most definitely had compelling inside information about a horse who’d been making a noise. And they will still have that inside info.
Next call from punters, understandably, will be wanting to know which ones were making a noise. This is set to run and run.
Because the authorities need to do their best to ensure punter confidence in the sport, otherwise punters may well turn elsewhere.
Declaration of wind-ops will do bugger all for that, those who don’t already know that it “will be useless for the punter” will eventually realise it, sooner or later.
Punters are turning away from the game due to far more serious issues than the declaration of wind-ops and the BHA say and do absolutely nothing about them.
tbh I don’t really care if a horse has had a wind-op or not, so to me it’s irrelevant.
slight side note, i see Lucinda Russell’s Dancing Amy (1.45 muss) has W1 after its name
That’s right. As per the RP, today’s four post-wind-ops are:
Dancing Amy (Lucinda Russell) 1.45 Musselburgh
Alberobello (Nicky Martin) 3.20 Chepstow
Dr Hooves (Lucinda Russell) 4.00 Musselburgh
Wimpole (Michael Scudamore) 4.00 MusselburghCan’t see anything wrong with Mr Moore’s comments really, just his largely-irrelevant opinion. I don’t see any negatives to having more information available to the punter, but my guess is that nobody will be talking about this anyway in a couple of weeks time.
Mike
imo It is useful information.
Am sure trainers/connections know from home work when a wind op has been particularly effective and when in all probability has failed. Sometimes there’s been a positive market move and looking at the form I’ve thought “what the hell for”?… It wins and then the news comes out it’s had a wind op. Similarly, sometimes there’s a negative market move and I’ve thought “what the hell for”?… It finishes well beaten and the news comes out it’s had a wind op. Allied to market moves it could be valuable information on the day (although now it’s public knowledge won’t be as significant a move)……And it’s also useful information to know why a horse has shown nothing one run and then bang!… Back in form or even improved form the next. Otherwise the punter is searching for reasons for its improvement/rejuvenation. ie Was it the ground? Distance? Course? Time Of Year? Pace of the race? Appendages? No, it was in all probability the wind op. Wind ops are sometimes only effective for a short time too, so punters will be able to allow for that in the price they’re willing to take in future races.
Head appendages, tongue ties or even a change in going and/or distance also don’t always have the same wonder-affect, doesn’t mean we should not know about them.
Value Is EverythingThat last part sums it up perfectly.
We as punters make decisions on all aspects of racing. If we note that a horse has first time blinkers on we can ask ourselves if we think it might help the horse. The same applies to cheek-pieces etc
If the stable were to fit blinkers and we didn’t know about it until the stalls opened, there would rightly be an outcry if the horse involved bolted up. Why should a wind-op be any different then?
Is this to be like Fight Club? The first rule of Wind-Op Club is that you don’t talk about Wind-Op Club etc
If I had to choose between which of the “Aids” might have the most profound effect, and potentially the biggest positive effect on a horse, it would be a wind-op by a mile. It is potentially sorting an actual, important, physical impediment.
The best time to cash in on a horse who has had a wind-op is surely the first time it runs after the op. Once it has been seen to have won and improved for the procedure, the genie is out of the betting bottle.
Thank you Mr Moore but I’ll be the one to decide what to make of declaring wind-ops and NOT you.
Wind-Op/Wind-Up Merchant.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Its not a trainers job to have any regard for punters.
1830s thinking.
Fwiw I think gingers posts are spot on here and perfectly put
The idea that trainers should disregard punters who ultimately pay for the sport are economically illiterate. I’m really surprised at that wexford
Good run from Dr Hooves, although his owner was celebrating his 50th birthday and sponsored every race bar one on the card, so no doubt he was absolutely primed for a big run in any case.
Looking at the SPs of those 4 horses it doesn’t appear that hordes of confused punters were rushing like lemmings put their shirt, mortgage and firstborn child on the wind op horses. Thank goodness Moore and all those other trainers were so tenderly concerned for our punting welfare that they were at pains to point out that wind surgery does not involve implanting a rocket up a horse’s arse, or we’d all be destitute.
I am a bit surprised how keen they- and especially the vet quoted in the RP- were to point out that wind surgery has unpredictable and often disappointing results in marginal cases. That sounds like “We’re perfectly willing to subject horses to irreversible surgery, the potential complications of which include aspiration pneumonia, for a small chance of marginal gains, if owners wave enough cash at us”. Ethically dubious to say the least.
It’s always a “little” wind op too. Just a wee tiny procedure-een. Bet they wouldn’t say that if a surgeon was waving a hot iron near their soft palate. Have the feckers never bitten into a molten cheese pizza?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.