- This topic has 39 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
skubie wrote
Several times in this thread the issue of horses not being trained or raced to win is brought up. This is the result of a system that does not reward a horse for running to its maximum ability first time out (or everytime for that matter) but rather penalises it …..If the system rewarded horses for performing to the best of their abilities
The issues concerning the handicap system have been brilliantly written about by Paul Haigh “System that makes victims of honest performers”,
Racing Post 4/8/2001 (and discussed many times on this forum).
Most experts do not seem to have a problem with it because they can check the form book and analyse if going/distance/track etc. is suitable.
I think it’s unfair and abusive on the horses, for a variety of reasons.
However, if a horse is to be deliberately pulled, or known not to be sound, and the public/experts are unaware, it is a somewhat different scenario.
Those who rush to tell me it never happens, remember, no swearing.
And by the way, honest guv, it wasn’t me who instigated the reprimand.Firstly I apologise for repeating previous discussion if that is the case, but I am new to the forum.
I’m sure stopping horses does happen. But I would argue that the vast majority of times a horse is "stopped" it is simply its own abilities at that moment in time in that particular race that are stopping it, not the jockey. As is rightly pointed out much of this can be divulged from the form book – but fitness, pre race prep etc. can not and not every pedigrees is easy to analyse as far as calculating an ideal trip.
The jockey is fully aware of limitations of ability as are all the other connections. It is this knowledge that leads to information that can be misused to lay the horses. Technically running a horse in these circumstances is not wrong, however a system that encourages it can not help to reduce the number of cases relating to inside information.
If more horses were running truly on their merits and trying their utmost to win the race then those were being given "dodgy" rides would be that much easier to observe.
I was at the races yesterday and studied one race in particular. I had heard whispers.
The horse in question had a series of duck eggs and was a good price although backed in a little.
Trained by someone whom I do not trust at all, it pranced into the paddock with eyeballs popping.
Had it been pulled in prior races? Had it been given a tonic? I don’t know and had no proof.
It won. I did not back it and had no intentions of doing so.
The day before a heavily backed horse lost. I’d been told it wasn’t fit. I could have layed it but didn’t.
What some people do not understand is the abuse and cruelty horses can suffer at the hands of the unscrupulous. Perhaps they don’t care as long as the money rolls in.- Total Posts 17716
It is surely naïvety in the extreme to suggest that “dodgy rides” don’t come into these cases at all, as the nibblers involved were “only telling their family what they thought their chances were” [or words to that effect]. Yeah, right – they were telling their loved ones that these yokes were worth risking 4 and 5 figure losses (as surely must have been involved in laying horses to the tune of earning £56k out of it) as they didn’t think their mounts were good enough to win, this has nothing to do with the small matter of them strangling the beasts to make damn sure they didn’t win!
I doubt that anyone who visits this board regularly is naive enough to think that horses aren’t given easy rides. However it is patently absurd to suggest that all those passing on information were also “strangling” horses to ensure they didn’t win. Indeed the HRA investigated quite a number of rides from the various suspended jockeys and, Fran Ferris apart, found no evidence at all to support this view. On the contrary, they found that most of the horses in question were given every chance, even well enough ridden to cost the informees substantial sums on occasion.
It might also be worth bearing in mind that any jockey regularly ‘stopping’ horses without the stables knowledge or consent would quickly find the rides drying up – very quickly if the horse lost a winning chance – and certainly wouldn’t be in a position to ride the totals that such as Winston and Culhane regularly accumulate.
Let’s try and stick to the facts, and leave the emotive overstatement to other forums.
I think that the world is far too worried about the petty things in life and not worried enough about the important things. There are more important things to be concerned about than the ‘verbal’ blunder of a newspaper columnist IMO.
If indeed you perceive it to be a blunder – I happen to agree with what Lydia wrote, as do several others, people who are heavily involved in the horseracing world.
I really can’t see where you are coming from Reet – I’d suggest that if you were closely involved in the racing world, at all levels from yard level to being oncourse several times a week, then you might just realise that I am dealing in facts. And no, facts in my book aren’t just what the Racing Post tells us to believe.
Emotive overstatement this ain’t – but maybe you really have to be involved to see what is going on in front of your eyes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.