- This topic has 96 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I agree that none of the times on the sprint course on Friday and Saturday suggested the ground was anywhere near "good to firm".
However, how confident are people that it was the ground, and the ground alone, that was the undoing of Sakhee’s Secret?
He came from off the pace to dispute the lead 1f out then went backwards from that point.
There are a number of possible explanations. The going – which didn’t prevent him making a potentially race-winning move after halfway – being too soft is just one of them.
It will be interesting to see if the unwatered fare at Bath tommorow brings about a change in TDK’s fortunes. I’ll be observing No Morals’ early prices with added interest, having recently got matey with a bloke at ‘evening classes’ who has one of the pathological accounts there – the ones where you can takeout 30k no questions asked. I’ll be sure to advise him of any rickets they’ve made.
You know, even if I say it myself, getting that chairperson gig at the local gamanon is already proving a masterstroke.
I definitely think some horses lose their confidence on ground with false patches – that would provide an explanation for a horse travelling well then not going through with it when the jockey asks for an effort…
As for SS – I don’t think he is at his best on dead ground, but perhaps he isn’t the most consistent horse either. He disappointed at Ascot last year (and I don’t think it was the trip alone that beat him that day) and the run at Newbury earlier in the season was relatively disappointing, although that was on dead ground as well.
I still think that on his day, he is the best 6f sprinter in Europe.
I don’t think it could be described as good -soft. There is a big difference between genuine weather induced good-soft ground and patchy overwatered fast ground. On the latter syrface many horses simply lose their confidence and don’t stride out at all – hence you get many horses running disappointingly and the field ends up strung out like washing
Despite the fact that nobody can compute how much money was lost by the connections of the horses or the punters, Thedarknights’s presumably incontrovertible comments, above, are sufficient of themselves to stand alone as basis for outrage and an utter determination on the part of trainers and owners not to permit themselves to be jerked around any longer by whoever is responsible for this apparently cynically motivated ploy in future.
Maybe the facts would even serve as a basis for a legal action. There must be a chain of responsibility, and if it can be proved that the party ultimately responsible is also the party to profit by far the most significantly from it – such as in the latter case, apparently bookmakers, then the legal counsels of the trainers and owners might be able to make the case that such an unwarranted and even perverse action amounts to ‘nobbling’.
How much extra cost is incurred to connections when a horse has been prepared to be fully fit to run in a particular race, and then has to be retrained in some measure for another race, must be impossible to quantify, but if there is good reason to believe that the track has been artificially altered by a party to favour a more aleatory result – or in any case, which artificially alters certain of the horses’ known prospects for acting on the going, which had been officially stated to be otherwise, then surely, apart from the recklessly caused outgoings by way of travelling, labour and rescheduling expenses incurred by the connections of the horses concerned, surely the ‘nobbling’ allegation would have some merit – most notably, of course, if it concerns, in particular, a hot favourite?
Whatever the case, it seems to me that private financial interests in creating this artificial going, if identified, should be dealt with in whatver way is possible but certainly by an absolute proscription against such actions, on pain of a very severe sanction by a competent racing authority, as well as, if possible a similarly severe sanction by the courts. Well, that’s how it seems to me.
Clerk of the Course at Haydock racecourse, Kirkland Tellwright:
“Rainfall affects the ground differently to irrigation and the ground is very temperamental, which is why we are investing as much as we are in the redevelopment of the track. What people are unaware of is if we produced fast ground it would be unacceptable, but they don’t seem to be seeing that.”
A predictably fast surface more unacceptable than a false surface, the possibility of which the horses’ connections were not notified?
You hit the nub of the issue Grimes.
Paul Scotney has publicly stated that he wants a level playing field and to root out corruption. This issue should surely get some attention from him.
In fact isn’t it time for the following:
1) A public declaration of interests of all those within the BHA/HRA, disclosing all payments in kind by the bookmakers to those who run the sport. I for one don’t feel that I’m betting on a ‘level playing field’ when I hear of others in positions of influence within racing, being offered better terms than are publicly available. Maybe Scotney can use the new powers he has to ask what bets have been struck at what prices by racing’s rulers and compare and contrast them to the terms the general public are betting under at the same time.
2) An investigation into the betting patterns at some courses when there has been artifical watering and undisclosed attempts to reverse/create a draw bias. Not exactly a level playing field when stay at home punters are betting against those who know of a radical change in conditions or maybe even perpetrated them
3) An investigation of where the two extra stalls, visible at Kempton on Saturday, will have ‘disappeared’ to by Wednesday night and which organisation(s) gave the orders to hide them? Not exactly a level playing field when those you are betting against can influence who runs in a race!
4) A review of the BAGS payments to racecourses, attempting to establish whether the attachment of conditions to such payments should be ruled against the interests of the sport. If jockeys can’t be given gifts for fear of corrupting them and instead get flat fees and percentages, why are courses given gifts for putting on races the bookmakers want? Isn’t it time to change the BAGS payments to a flat fee in the interests of racing’s image?
That’s great, Glenn. A clear view of the nitty-gritty and what’s needed to countervail against such dark forces in this matter.
And make no mistake, if it is the bookies that’s what they are. All big public companies are psychopaths, who have been given the green light since Thatcher’s day to plunder at will, without any reference to morality of any kind that the law cannot impose on them. They’ll do whatever it takes to maximise their profits that they can get away with. The old bookies of yester-year and their razor gangs were pussy-cats in comparison.
It must seem absolutely intolerable to the likes of Morrison and Smart, who would have invested so much toil, hope and emotional capital into what could well have proven a great day for themselves, their staff, and the owners. And kind of bizarre to be so commercially involved with corporatism virtually by avocation, on a daily basis. Yet to be done down by its leading lights in such a way.
It reminds me of something I read the other day about the banks who were struggling because of the subprime lending fiasco, and needed to borrow from other banks. Apparently, in such situations they charge each other at quite punitive rates.
- Total Posts 17716
I agree that none of the times on the sprint course on Friday and Saturday suggested the ground was anywhere near “good to firm”.
However, how confident are people that it was the ground, and the ground alone, that was the undoing of Sakhee’s Secret?
He came from off the pace to dispute the lead 1f out then went backwards from that point.
There are a number of possible explanations. The going – which didn’t prevent him making a potentially race-winning move after halfway – being too soft is just one of them.
My sentiments too, (Though the way they mess around with the ground, particularly at Haydock, is unforgiveable).
Didn’t anyone else think it rather odd that Hughie Morrison expressed the fear, (Saturday morning’s RP), that he was sending Sakhee’s Secret into the race “a little underdone”?.
A strange thing for a trainer of his experience to admit, particularly in view of the horse’s position in the betting, the time he’d had to prepare him, and the lack of further worthwhile targets this season?
RH – Morrison is always negative about his horses’ chance when interviewed prior to big races and I wouldn’t read too much into that remark. I would be surprised if the horse wasn’t fit enough on Saturday, although we will never know for sure of course….
BTW I agree with Grimes and Glenn on their points.
Racing’s income is linked directly to bookmakers and exchanges profits on the sport. However, anyone who thinks that deliberately misleading the betting public as to the conditions on the day of the race (hence making it harder for them to back winners) is going to improve the long term viability of the sport needs their head examined.
………………..but isn’t Hughie a perennial pessimist, who always thinks that he has got something wrong?
Colin
Some wonderful " conspiracy theories" above from Glenn and Grimes.
That’s not to say that I think they are wrong……………the sooner the sport rids itself of off-course bookmakers the better, as far as I am concerned.
Colin
I agree with TDK regarding these conspiracy theories having no substance to them.
There is no need for bookmakers to adopt such indirect methods to alter results when the SP margins have been contrived to give them a very substantial increase in gross profits.
Really, whichever way you look at this, bookmakers gain. They gain if people lose confidence in racing and move to betting on other sports and they gain if we all carry on betting at SP at the new(post Nov 2006) margins.
Why go around shooting at groups of people who are pockets of resistance, when you can drop one large devastating bomb on the lot of them.
- Total Posts 17716
It seem’s we’re not the only ones upset; it seems Shekih Hamdan is throwing a bluey!
Maybe, just maybe, someone may listen now?
Really, whichever way you look at this, bookmakers gain. They gain if people lose confidence in racing and move to betting on other sports .
I don’t agree with that at all. Making horse racing unattractive, unpredictable and frustrating for punters won’t help bookmakers in the long run and obviously won’t help racing either. Racing needs to stop shooting itself in the foot and bookmakers need to wise up to the fact that horse racing is a valuable product that needs nurturing….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.