- This topic has 96 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
So all your bogus accusations can be dismissed as mere "semantics"? I hope for your sake you are never involved in a libel case
I don’t really understand the point in this instance anyway. All the horses declared at Haydock were done so on the basis of good-firm ground. The early NRs were the horses like Al Qasi where connections were presumably chancing that there may be some rain. The only thing watering was going to do was to produce more NRs on the day when trainers – like Barry Hills did with his nursery runner – realise what a shambles you have made of the course after the first few races (- and he had just won a fecking Group 1!!)
TDK – I stand corrected, it isn’t SIS that pays the 4k. It is BAGS.
Some might suggest that certain bookies might be associated with the decision making within BAGS and have profited from the watering policies. Some might even go further and suggest that some of the windfall profits they made as a result of this policy were invested in a horse with a certain trainer.
As you seem to be turning into Ian Davies – I couldn’t posssibly comment!
Haydock are a disgrace. They and the rest of the racecourses need to get their acts together regarding ground watering.
Over the last few years it has become more and more of an obsession that racecourses water and try to provide "perfect good ground". Why? Stop it there’s no need.
There is nothing wrong with really fast ground as long as it is safe, some horses actually love it.
We’ve had nothing but rain all summer then when we finally get to a point when the heavens aren’t opening 24/7 the idiots start watering courses. What chance do fast ground horses have?
Its flat racing season we’re not catering for three mile chasers.
Leave the bloddy ground alone. Only water sufficiently to take out any jar and make sure the ground is safe.
Well, I can’t complain too much because I had a 10-1 win bet on Red Clubs. I think all horses had equal chances to win the race and Red Clubs was clearly the best horse today. It was a good betting race because all conteners but Sakhee’s Secret went off at good prices. And for punters it means good prices when the favorite finishes out of money.
On the other hand I also wonder if the watering was really necessary.Well, I can’t complain too much because I had a 10-1 win bet on Red Clubs. I think all horses had equal chances to win the race and Red Clubs was clearly the best horse today. It was a good betting race because all conteners but Sakhee’s Secret went off at good prices. And for punters it means good prices when the favorite finishes out of money.
On the other hand I also wonder if the watering was really necessary.Red Clubs was clearly the best horse on the false (not as advertised) ground today.
You are right in respect that all horses had an equal chance (on the ground). The point is that punters did not!
Well, I can’t complain too much because I had a 10-1 win bet on Red Clubs. I think all horses had equal chances to win the race and Red Clubs was clearly the best horse today. It was a good betting race because all conteners but Sakhee’s Secret went off at good prices. And for punters it means good prices when the favorite finishes out of money.
On the other hand I also wonder if the watering was really necessary.Red Clubs was clearly the best horse on the false (not as advertised) ground today.
You are right in respect that all horses had an equal chance (on the ground). The point is that punters did not!
Well, don’t know don’t know what the real going today was. But Red Clubs had a good record on gd-fm ground before the race (9 starts – 3 wins). So everybody who analyses the race using forms and statistics will give him a good chance on a gd-fm going.
However, trainers often use going as an excuse when a horse loses. Imo a group 1 horse should be able to run well on every ground.Well, don’t know don’t know what the real going today was.
Whenever I ‘ ve been to Haydock there is no sign or notice indicating what
the going is . [ The same goes for non – runners , change of jockey or
overweights . ]Someone needs to get a grip of this…..
Seems to be forgotten that alot of punters rely on early going predicitions to make bets, simply beacuse we cant all spend Sat afternoons in front of the box (on a sunny day too..)
Didnt affect me today, but has in the past and its a joke….
Racing has enough credibilty problems as it is. How would a golf punter feel if he found that the course being played had been lengthened overnight?
Their are fines and points deductions for screwed up itches in cricket. is it too much to imagine that the BHB could consider the same for hopelessly messed up ground and laughably inaccurate going descriptions?
well….`
Some might suggest that certain bookies might be associated with the decision making within BAGS and have profited from the watering policies. Some might even go further and suggest that some of the windfall profits they made as a result of this policy were invested in a horse with a certain trainer.
As you seem to be turning into Ian Davies – I couldn’t posssibly comment!
Well – I can categorically state that I have never had anything to do with any decision making within BAGS and I can also state categorically that I have never invested in any horse as a result of any "windfall profits"
Sorry – it’s back to the drawing board for you and your amateurish conspiracy theories.
Why do you assume that I am referring to you?
Whatever the case, the main point is that the bookmakers have instituted a payment structure to courses that rewards watering. Isn’t Tellwight just running a business like any other and doing his best for that business?
It’s all very well calling the course he runs a disgrace but it will just happen time and time again until the incentive to water is removed and that ball would appear to be in the bookmaker’s court.
Your time would be better spent exerting influence over the organ grinders that make the decisions that led to the watering than taking it out on a monkey like Tellwright.
Why do you assume that I am referring to you?
Why don’t you just say who are referring to then to avoid confusion? I guess putting names to your baseless accusations doesn’t really appeal….
Well, don’t know don’t know what the real going today was.
Whenever I ‘ ve been to Haydock there is no sign or notice indicating what
the going is . [ The same goes for non – runners , change of jockey or
overweights . ]Bimble
BHB Rule 23 makes the Clerk of Scales responsible for that (except the most important – the going) and if there is no communication then it needs reporting to the Stewards.
"23. (ii) cause to be displayed on the screen or number board any alterations to the following information published in the official race card:
(a) declared horses,
(b) declared Riders with allowances claimed if appropriate,
(c) in Flat races the draw,
(d) extra weight or variation of weight or weight allowance,
(e) colours, and,
(f) declarations that horses are wearing a hood, blinkers, visor, eyeshield, eyecover, or sheepskin cheek pieces or any combination thereof or a tongue strap.
The numbers or changes shall be displayed either continuously or at regular intervals until the horses are started. "Why do you assume that I am referring to you?
Why don’t you just say who are referring to then to avoid confusion? I guess putting names to your baseless accusations doesn’t really appeal….
How can I name you when I don’t know your name? I Pmed to ask you for it a few weeks back and you didn’t reply.
Hello,
I completely agree with most posts on this subject, principally, the punters are the losers here.
But please don’t forget Chester last week, I completely disregarded VANDERLIN because of the G/F going, only for the course to water, and provide perfect conditions for a G/S animal???
How on earth can I forsee that interference
It is another MAJOR step towards me, and from discussions with people of a similar ilk, to rethink my gambling strategy.
I adore racing, but over the last few years, the incompetentcy of the people running the sport, plus the obvious criminal activities attached to The Sport of Kings, I find the odds are now hugely stacked against me striking a winning bet.Probably Footie Coupons for me in future, and hopefully these will not incorporate any contribution from my ante to a sport that has now descended into an abyss.
regards,
doyley
Where you get a race meeting over two days or more, it is usually easier to assess the going on days 2,3 or 4 because you have the evidence(race times) from previous days. You can allow for a bit of drying out, but if it rains heavily, you can usually forget about what the ground was like the previous days.
My point here is that the Haydock times on Friday suggested the ground was good rather than the official good to firm, so there was no need to consider any watering on Saturday morning. Did any watering actually take place before racing on Saturday? If it did, the people responsible are culpable and deserve the barracking they received. If they only watered on Wednesday or Thursday, it seems they are being criticised rather unjustly.
Where the ground is expected to be good to firm and no rain is forecast, it seems prudent to put some water on the track. I’m sure it is done with the best of intentions by people who know about turf husbandry.
Saturday’s times were consistent with good ground, although slightly slower than the RP standards. It was obvious the ground was a bit loose on top, as it was on Friday, which might have affected those horses who like to ping off the ground. Did the trainers of these horses watch Friday’s racing? If they did, they would have seen horses kicking up bits of turf, much as they did on Saturday.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.