- This topic has 246 replies, 87 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Marble outlined the case for backing a maiden against the maiden winners in this Nursery in the Agadoo thread last night, but I can’t quote it because he later deleted it.
It says a lot about racing in this country that arguably the two most high-profile pro-punters seem to make their money off the back of horses they pay the training bills for (though don’t officially own) by predicting when they’re suddenly going to show vastly improved form.
Compare and contrast to someowhere like Hong Kong where form punters rule the roost. Of course they have proper integrity in HK not the laughing stock we have here. I think ‘sheriff’ is the nickname of the guy who turned the corner against corruption there. The nearest thing we have to a sheriff here are the
Racing Post
putting a bounty on Culhane’s head in a poker tournament aimed at luring punters away from betting on racing. You really couldn’t make it up.
Of course, Culhane was one of the go to men when this horse was attaining his handicap mark.
Findlay has had a good year in festival handicaps. He won the Wokingham with the group class High Standing. It’s a pity that a contender for champion sprinter couldn’t raise a gallop in its first three runs (before Findlay owned it) in, erm, sprints. It’s even more a pity that no serious questions have ever been asked about these runs. In fact, if you look at the BHA steward’s reports you’ll find the only infringements to have been considered (beyond one automatic referral that we hear no more of)regarding the horse’s previous runs relate to careless riding!
It seems the BHA don’t even consider a seven sigma improvement as worthy of investigation.. British racing
really is a free for all
.
Think you’re going a bit, or more than a bit too far there Glenn, again.
Seems to me that in a lot of these cases you write about, you want to be Prosecuter (without evidence), Judge and Jury.
It’s a shame, because when you do have a good point, very few people listen to you. Too many conspiracy theories, I’m afraid you’ve cried too many times.
Nothing has been proven.
Think on the whole the BHA do a reasonable job, but now and again things slip through the net.
Value Is EverythingResult – The honest connections have to concede 18lbs to the "improver" who hasn’t tried a yard until today imo and get done on the line. They must be gutted, I wouldn’t blame them.
Pull the other one Harry…Gambler my ar*e.
Well said.
‘Pocket talk’ is often very acute, I find. Even if it’s just no more than calling the jockey or the horse a four letter word. It’s therapeutic. After all, the people doing their b*****s in betting shops are the ones who keep the game going for all the bookies, gamblers and city-boy owners.
Yes, most of the time they’re mugs, who want to blame someone else for their loss.
Value Is EverythingNot asking to be judge and jury on anything. I’d just like a few more questions asked about some of these runs before a horse gets a mark.
If a horse can put in perfomances that would place it in the bottom percentile of perfomers and then goes on to produce perfomance(s) that would place it in the top percentile then, to put it mildly, I think questions really do need to be asked.
If the BHA don’t ask any questions, beyond some perfunctory noting of explanations that kicks in when a horse wins a handicap having never been placed previously, then I don’t think they are doing any job at all – never mind a good one.
I never had any bets on this race.
Eve Johnston Houghton the trainer of Yurituni was quoted on the Sporting Life website tonight as saying
‘today was the plan
The handicapper has been quite nice to her
She also praises Harry Findlay for sending her this horse.
The two questions that should be asked are
What do you mean by today was the plan so do you mean then that the previous runs were not in your plans to be trying a yard?
When you say the handicapper had been quite nice to your horse this means that you knew that it had a decent level of ability so why can you then offer no explanation for ‘improved form’.
The handicapper can only give a mark to what a horse has achieved and he cannot be privvy to any trainer and owner hatching up some plan to deceive him (and all other punters) so why did you think he had been quite nice to your horse when all known racecourse form so far had been moderate at best?
The only saving fact was that this horse had been well backed all morning which was highlighted on both RUK and ATR and also on Oddschecker.
Of course the connections of the second were cheated out of a win as if Yurituni had been raced fairly in just one of the prevoius races the handicapper would not have let it race on such a low mark and as it only got beat a short distance and this placing would surely have been reversed.
The other factor to consider was did the ‘owners’ lay it on any of the other 3 races when they must have known the handbrake would not be let off?
- Total Posts 17716
The horse has found 15/20lbs improvement – within 15 days and in very similar circumstances.
If it was greyhounds,they’d be thrown off the track; no questions asked in horseracing, unless they told someone?
Integrity; what integrity?
not at wheatly hill or peelaw green they wouldn’t.
it’s handicapping.= code for bent as duck. we all know te score, everyone has to eat. - Total Posts 17716
There is one obvious difference between Yurituni’s previous three outings, happy, and those of countless Sir Mark Prescott gambles; they were all over similar trips, in similar conditions and in the same season.
Running horses on their merits over too short a trip is one thing (if morally questionable), but it’s very different when such rapid improvement comes when nothing has seemingly changed.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that this horse was flagged up by Channel4. The ‘female’ – good grief, a senior moment, I can’t remember her name, but who cares, you know who I mean – at some stage, I believe before the first race,mentioned the fact that there was money for it and that it was owned by Harry Findlay.
These two facts were quite enough for anyone with any nous whatsoever to regard themselves as ‘bin told.’ After placing the obvious bet with their bookmaker they would then have ‘bin laden’ with dosh.
Only problem for me was that, preoccupied with several useless bets, I forgot to add this sole useful one to my collection.
tried to edit previous post, only duplicated it, then couldn’t find how to delete the duplicated one. ‘Yawn.’
Come on guys, be fair. Harry’s not in it for the money. Who could begrudge a dear son from preparing a horse to win a little race for the sole purpose of being able to bring a big smile to his mum’s face.
I mean to say, there are hundreds of other races for we punters to lose our money on so it’s no big deal if once in a while we allow one to go to the Harry’s Mum Charitable Foundation. "He’s a good boy, our Harry" I can hear the Angels singing.It used to be ‘laid out for a nursery’ and "He’s a canny bugger!", nudge, nudge, wink, wink. I suppose these days you could put a slightly more Betfairian meaning to the first phrase.
Rob
In fairness to Mr Findlay, he hardly has a record of hiding the talents of his horses under a bushel in order to land a coup at long odds, does he?
Some excellent responses on this thread so far.
I expect 83 out of every 100 hundred horses I back (win singles) to get beaten, so a -1 point on the race in question is no big deal, we move on, I’ll get it back.
What really is galling is the cheats (imo) walk away with the gold, whilst the honest people get feck all, the entire operation carried out without a question being asked. Where is the motivation for any owner to maintain integrity in all of this?
I see where Cav is coming from but from my point of view the game would be a lot duller without these type of "unknown" horses.
If every owner/trainer cheated (imo) as happened yesterday, we wouldn’t have a sport. Assessment of ability by observation of racecourse performance is a bedrock in this game, its what keeps the vast majority of us interested whether your a punter or not. The formbook isnt published by Scotland Yard. You cant have one rule for the honest people another for the "colourful types", as seems the case at the moment.
Nothing has been proven.
To prove anything you have to investigate. As usual the people who run this game will do feck all except deal us another kick in you know wheres.
In fairness to Mr Findlay, he hardly has a record of hiding the talents of his horses under a bushel in order to land a coup at long odds, does he?
No, he’s great at telling one and all to lump on 1/3. A real Robin Hood. Seems to me like UK racing’s biggest self publicised "gamblers" dont gamble at all. Stop a horse (imo) a few times then lump on when the brakes are taken off. The only difficult part is getting the money on, which has feck all to with gambling in the first place…which brings me back to the title of this thread.
Shame on you Harry.
great minds eh.
it’s handicapping.= code for bent as duck. we all know te score, everyone has to eat. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.