- This topic has 45 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Never seen this comment before and wonder what made the race reader use it in the official formbook, as I didn’t see any clods of earth, beyond the usual kicking up of turf, from the ATR pics.
Maybe the race reader did see it from where he was standing, but is it a coincidence that this was Ryan Moore’s explanation? I always thought that jockey’s explanations appeared in brackets after the official comments in running. Maybe it wasn’t an official explanation. Maybe the stewards didn’t deign to enquire about a horse that should have been fav (IMHO) but ran like a diseased goat after being offered at any price you like.
Can someone that knows about these things explain what happened here?
The horse was Zaarmit in the 4.00 Brighton on Sunday.
If it was Brighton there is a reasonable chance it may have been Lee, as he often does the comments there.
Was it you Lee?
Come on explain
Hi guys
Yes, was me!I admit I changed the comment after Ryan Moore’s explanation to the stewards. During the race, the horse seemed happy enough held up in last place until around halfway, from which point he was all over the place – looking terribly unbalanced and not that keen either. At first, I put it down to the track, which many horses don’t act on, so my first attempt at the comment was:
"…looked ill-at-ease on track and uncomfortable from halfway…"However, when Ryan Moore reported the clod of earth hitting the horse, it seemed unreasonable to accuse his mount of failing to handle the undulations, so I modified the comment in the database. The ground, though fast underneath, was loose on top after quite a bit of rain early in the afternoon.
Normally I would prefer to actually see an incident myself before including it in the form book, but on this occasion Ryan’s observation made sense because something clearly caused the horse to lose its momentum so badly.
We are encouraged to put more information into the Racing Post/Raceform comments these days, and to be more descriptive. Maybe you can all let me know if you prefer the briefer old-style comments like "prominent, led over 1f out, ridden out", or do you find more detail helpful in visualising how a horse ran?
Cheers guys, as ever will pass your comments on
As a (previously full time, but now only occasional) racereader, I would personally feel uncomfortable putting anything in a close-up comment that I didn’t see with my own two eyes. I would leave anything that a jockey has reported post-race to the footnote or subsequent report.
Fair point HJ, but believe me, for confirmation purposes I always make every effort to scrutinise replays for any incident that has been reported, sometimes watching the video (slow motion or even frame-by-frame as well as full speed) a dozen times or more, but not everything is visible.
I think anything that is relevant to punters next time the horse runs is worth including if it is reliable, and this was after all an official explanation not a piece of post-race chit-chat. Therefore, if I had taken the view that there was no offending clod of earth, it would be like accusing Ryan Moore of lying to the stewards, and I doubt that very much.
Incidentally, the replay shows Zaarmit travelling keenly in last place until just before the Wilson Avenue crossing (6f out), when his head goes to one side, and from that moment on he just isn’t going.
However, whether a clod of earth was totally responsible for the horse’s poor run is a matter of conjecture, which is why I phrased the comment thus:
"hit by clod of earth and looked uncomfortable from halfway"
rather than "hit by clod of earth, not recover"
It is still possible that he simply didn’t act on the track, particularly on the rain-affected fast ground, but only time will tell if he ever returns there in similar conditions.
This is slightly off topic but does anyone know who writes the "Text Commentary" on the RP Betting Site?
I’ve found it to be interesting reading as there appears to be a certain candidness, at times, in the reporting of events which seem to be lacking (understandably) elsewhere.
Thanks Colin, those of you who don’t know may be interested to find out that a copy of any post-race explanation given to the stewards is sent to the press room asap after it comes to light.
This is how we received the information on this occasion:
"Ryan Moore, the rider of ZAARMIT (IRE), reported that the colt got hit by a clod of earth and was never travelling thereafter."You can find them all here:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … latory.asp
Some of them relate to specific incidents where the stewards have approached the trainer/jockey, others come under the category of reasons volunteered by trainer/jockey without prompting.
Race-readers do include some of the explanations in the close-up comments, others are left for the bit in brackets or wherever that Glenn and HJ referred to. It’s simply a judgement call in each specific case.
But if a jockey reports that a horse was "lame" or "saddle slipped", for example, it always makes it into the comments, and so do several other plausible reasons. In the case of Zaarmit, though it was unique in my experience, I felt it was worth including the clod of earth because in some places the official explanations don’t always accompany the race comments.
If Zaarmit bolts up next time and you hadn’t been told about it, you might have felt you hadn’t been fully informed. In any case, it’s up to you whether you include it in your calculations – you don’t have to blame the clod if you don’t want to!
However, whether a clod of earth was totally responsible for the horse’s poor run is a matter of conjecture
Whether a clod of earth was involved at all is a matter of conjecture, surely.
"Reportedly" for me…
Hi Prufrock, something definitely happened to the horse nearing halfway – you can see Zaarmit’s head suddenly go to one side, from which point he is floundering all over the place, whereas beforehand he had been racing enthusiastically.
Just before that point, he had been racing close behind a group of three rivals, any one of whom could have thrown up a clod of earth from the loose surface following the rain. Afterwards, he is wide, losing touch, hanging all over the track and apparently hating it. But I am always open to suggestions, so perhaps someone else on the forum has a better explanation – it was obvious at the time that there was something wrong.
Personally, I would not like to suggest that Ryan Moore deliberately misled the stewards – his explanation has been recorded and will be there for future scrutiny. And on this occasion it makes sense of an otherwise strange piece of behaviour from the horse.
We are encouraged to put more information into the Racing Post/Raceform comments these days, and to be more descriptive. Maybe you can all let me know if you prefer the briefer old-style comments like “prominent, led over 1f out, ridden out”, or do you find more detail helpful in visualising how a horse ran?
I have a marked preference for the more descriptive style. That’s partly precisely because it aids the visualising process for me, and partly because it’s just a lot more entertaining to read!
I was researching Seymour Weld’s form the other night for an article, and happened across the write-up for his last-time win at Rasen in so doing. The incumbent comment of
“stole 8 lengths at start, made all in clear lead and jumped beautifully, shaken before 3 out, soon drew right away”
helps me out a hell of a lot more than
“made all, unchallenged”
ever would.
It’s good to learn that the Post and Raceform are more receptive to such a style of comments-in-running nowadays – it is, after all, more in line with the expansive, often brutal honesty with which the Hunter Chasers and Point-to-Pointers annual has approached the discipline for much of its near 50-year history.
For my own needs and preferences I’m always glad to see the name of either Lee, Steve Payne, Jonathan Neesom or of course Iain Mackenzie in the “Comments” field in the Post‘s results section. Reading the comments in running for Fakenham in particular is almost always an unfettered joy.
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Glad to hear you’re in favour Jeremy – your observations match several others I’ve heard, though I think it’s important not to clutter up the comments with irrelevant minor detail
To return to Zaarmit, and the most-discussed clod of earth in history, in the old days his comment would have been:
"always behind"!
any one of whom could have thrown up a clod of earth
(my emphasis)
Stating that the horse was "reportedly" struck by a clod of earth is not to imply that the jockey in question made it up. It just implies that the racereader is not prepared to turn a could into a did him or her self when that is not justified.
I agree here with Prufrock – the argument here isn’t whether the “clod of earth” should or should not be reported, it is whether it should feature in the comment-in-running. As far as I’m concerned, the job of a race-reader is to report the race how he or she sees it, and to leave all jockeys’ reports to the footnote (if one exists in the publication they are writing for) or at least in brackets at the end of the comment, with a “reportedly…..”, or “rider reported that…..” disclaimer.
I’m also a big fan of the descriptive style of race-reading, but IMO it doesn’t matter how descriptive they are – other people’s opinions should be left out of it.
As far as I’m concerned, the job of a race-reader is to report the race how he or she sees it.
Point taken HJ, but having reviewed the race numerous times, that is the way I see it
Thanks for replying Lee. Would you report a gurgle in the main comments? A jockey reporting something you can verify with slo-mo replays etc is one thing, unverifiable explanations going down into the form book as facts are quite another.
I have an ever so slight supsicion that whatever was troubling the horse was in place before the race started and not as a result of what happened during the race itself. Your comments might lead one to think that the horse ran poorly due to an undpredictable act of god that happened after the stalls opened.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.