- This topic has 32 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx? … =&sub=&day
The big betting race of the day takes place at Newmarket, in the shape of the Coral.co.uk Sprint Handicap, and there are two or three runners in that race that interest me, but unfortunately my advice is to leave Newmarket alone from a betting point of view. With the stalls back on the stands side, and rain forecast, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether we will see the same degree of stands-side bias that we saw on day two of the Guineas meeting; most serious punters nowadays are only too aware that draw biases are no longer guaranteed to be replicated from one meeting to another, and unfortunately my plea for tracks to try and give us some indicator of where the best ground may be by giving going stick readings across the track, rather than just one "master reading", has largely fallen on deaf ears. I have had just four replies to my email to clerks, three of which were from the clerks at Chester, Wolverhampton and Pontefract, which don’t have straight tracks, where my suggestion wouldn’t apply, and the lack of an overall response to what I thought was a positive request really does leave me shaking my head.
On the positive side, I did have a very helpful email from Andrew Cooper, clerk at Sandown and Epsom, who had already shown his initiative last year when producing (without any prompting from me!) stick readings for the stands side as well as the far side at Epsom. I spoke to Andrew at Sandown on Thursday evening, and he has promised to provide stick readings on both sides of the track for the Derby meeting next week (TurfTrax themselves provide the readings for the big meetings), and if the case arises where there is overnight rain at Sandown he has said he’ll try and provide readings for the "under the hedge" stands side at Sandown as well. I’m also fairly confident that Chris Stickels will again provide stick readings for the far side, middle and stands side at Royal Ascot, as he has done since last year’s controversial Royal meeting. Sadly, it doesn’t seem many other clerks are keen to be on board; I don’t know why this should be, but there does seem to be a feeling that many clerks are very suspicious of the going stick overall as a guide to the going, as it often tells them something different to what their own experience of how the track rides is telling them. This I can understand for sure, but my suggestion for stick readings across the track is comparing like with like, not two differing methods of assessment; I can understand that it must be frustrating when the stick readings are not consistent with how the track is going to ride, but what I am asking is for stick readings to be compared to each other, across the track. This, to me, could turn out to be the most helpful long-term use of the going stick.
Perhaps clerks are afraid of the stick readings revealing a track bias, and that they will be considered to have done a poor job if they admit there is a favoured part of the track. Let’s be in no doubt; track biases are an inevitable part of turf racing, and it doesn’t mean the clerk has screwed up if there is a bias. What is wrong, however, is trying to get rid of a bias by watering, and/or without telling the racing and betting public. This is a really important topic – if people in my situation find themselves advising people not to have a bet, and if punters lose confidence in betting on Flat racing, this is long-term going to have an impact on the Levy. Sadly, we still are not receiving enough information; for instance, the BHA website as of 9.15 this morning reveals that Beverley are reporting a going stick reading of "9 at Wednesday at 16.30", with no explanation for the lack of update; given the difficulty in interpreting how the straight at Beverley is going to ride these days, I’m amazed they are not giving racing people and punters more up-to-date information.
I agree with most of that, other than:
I’m amazed they are not giving racing people and punters more up-to-date information.
I think I would die of shock if racing people and punters were given more up-to-date information.
Punters are undeterred though – the 6F handicap at Newmarket is by far the most heavily traded race on that card on BF, and only just in second behind the Haydock Group 3 across the card.
My favourite going report this weekend is from Fontwell – good, good to firm in places, going stick broken.
I wonder how far he threw it ……..
AP
- Total Posts 17716
It’s going to be a farce today. Watered tracks all across the country and they’re expecting rain all over the place. Do we just ignore the forecasts now?
This watering "for safety" idea came out of Australia and was incorproated here when the Fwits hired the Aussie reject. Send it back downunder to the drought ridden land where it belongs!
I hope the courses all suffer the drop in turnover they thoroughly deserve.
Surely that’s because they are the two pwise races Alan. These are always the only races that do meaningful morning turnover.
Four five furlong races at Beverley today and it’s anyone’s guess how that 9.3 reading breaks down (though 8.3 far side, 10.3 near side would be jolly on recent form).
Have any betting shop staff in the Yorkshire area seen a large number of combo tricasts placed this morning?
I’m beginning to lose all hope with the sport in this country and I’m sick to death with the deaf ears of the BHA.
I’m afraid the only way to go may be for owners to stop owning and punters to stop betting on the sport.My estimation of Hugh Taylor rose even further today with that letter. At last someone with a real voice is speaking up on this issue (though credit to Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish).
The way that clerks are trying to water out natural bias on tracks is horrendous. Who would benefit from more uncertainty…. oh of course
I agree totally with Hugh’s request for fuller going information and , like him, I would like to see multiple going stick readings (taken as close to the meeting as possible) published.
It is interesting that the title of this thread, and several of the subsequent posts, talk about watering when no mention of watering is made at any point in Hugh’s piece.
So powerful has the watering bogeyman become that he now elicits a response even in those stories where he makes no appearance.
Actually, strike that it’s only the title and then one subsequent poster that refers to watering!
It’s a terrible thing to discover that one’s own prejudices are as pronounced as those one considers prejudiced! Doh!Tellwrongs description of the round course at Haydock today a work of fiction. Dont know what’s happened to Prosser lately , he used to be one of the better ones, the ground looked very loose at Newmarket today and times certainly don’t back up his official description either.
I too want to see multiple going stick readings. However, Hugh says any difference in the readings accross the course should not be seen as a fault by the clerks. I agree, but it will be a surprise if all racing media / punters will see it that way (especially in years to come). So can understand the hesitancy of clerks to open up, not wanting yet another "stick" to beat them with.
On the related subject of accurate going reports. Is it possible to take the going assessment (ONCE RACING HAS STARTED) out of the clerk’s hands? Especially for the main meetings. Some going reports are just (unintentionally) putting punters away. For example Cheltenham Festival this year was not as soft as the official going said. Any punter looking at those results could come to the wrong conclusions of going requirements. Could representatives from Racing Post and Timeform etc. do the job at big meetings?
Value Is EverythingSo powerful has the watering bogeyman become that he now elicits a response even in those stories where he makes no appearance.
It’s good to see that you are now free of the Lizards Boycie and you have taken down that blog post written under duress!
I’d be interested to hear your views on Beverley. The official line is that if there has been any removal of the draw bias then it’s due to permanent changes in policy (the so-called shaggy dog walker story) and yet there seems to be no consistency in the bias there. It seemed to be back to the good old days today after farcical scenes earlier in the week. How do you explain this
without
reference to watering?
So powerful has the watering bogeyman become that he now elicits a response even in those stories where he makes no appearance.
It’s good to see that you are now free of the Lizards Boycie and you have taken down that blog post written under duress!
I’d be interested to hear your views on Beverley. The official line is that if there has been any removal of the draw bias then it’s due to permanent changes in policy (the so-called shaggy dog walker story) and yet there seems to be no consistency in the bias there. It seemed to be back to the good old days today after farcical scenes earlier in the week. How do you explain this
without
reference to watering?
According to BHA: "Beverley state that they never carry out selective watering. It would be nigh-on impossible to selectively water the home straight, as it is narrow for its entire length. Four years ago Beverley invested in a new Briggs boom irrigator and this is used on the home straight rather than the old tow-line system, which definitely gives a more uniform coverage, especially if it is breezy during watering (which it inevitably is at Beverley)".
If BHA are correct, it may be that over time the grass sward has grown more evenly due to better watering and perhaps tining etc that we unaware of. As the jockeys are now too idle to walk the tracks before racing they may run in the wrong "tramlines" until they can eventually follow what the winner of a previous race did.
One issue is that there are clerks who immediately recognise that punters etc should be informed in the best way possible. Others do not think it is their job at all to inform people that don’t turn up to watch the racing.
You can identify from the BHA going reports which tracks care and which absolutely do not. The other issue is that BHA do not control the tracks – they just make the rules and even the RCA advice is wilfully ignored by some tracks without any comeback. They could not give a damn about being "caught out".The industry remains fragmented and weakly led and is simply not working as one to progress and enhance the sport.
I haven’t spoken with anyone at Beverley so I don’t know what has been done to the track there. Possibly exactly what they say they’ve done is what’s been done?
I have spoken , at great length, to people at Ascot though from Chris Stickells to Charles Barnett. Indeed I put the question regarding selective watering to Stickells a total of three times in different interviews. He has made it absolutely clear that no selective watering took place and yet that’s still not enough for some people. That’s the climate around this topic now.
Similarly, Hugh writes a piece about better information for punters so that we might compile our own data and reach our own conclusions regarding going and some people read that article and conclude it’s about watering, even though watering doesn’t get a mention. Again an indication of the climate around this whole question.
I think Ginger is spot on that clerks regard having a bias as an admission of failure. They are working to produce a ‘level playing field’ on which to race. When that doesn’t happen they do indeed come under fire. Trainers of fillies on the middle and far side in the 1000 Guineas didn’t say ‘ah well, serves me right for not bothering to walk the course’. Nor did they say, ‘we don’t mind biases as long as we know where they are’. No, what they did was condemn the course and the clerk for overseeing a ‘farce’ and a ‘disgrace’. Punters however would have certainly been receptive to advance notice (from multiple stick readings) of any possible bias.
Clerks have trainers and owners and the BHA demanding no bias on the one hand and they have punters saying tell us where the bias is on the other hand. Initiatives like Hugh’s are excellent but only if there is a cultural shift that encourages clerks to feel honesty is indeed the best policy.
I have no doubt that watering policy has had a negative effect in many instances but that does not mean that watering is the defining factor (or even a significant factor) every single time we encounter what appears to be a draw bias at a meeting. Our many racecourses are all unique very few of them have the same soil structure throughout one course, never mind from one course to another. Rail placement, cambers, grass growth, stand shade, soil differences, vehilce and plant traffic, joggers (!) and most importantly of all the prejudices of trainers and jockeys all play a part in producing biases. Against such a complex array of factors the incredibly blunt instrument that is watering would be a useless tool.
Yes, we must achieve total transparency as regards watering. Clerks should always be bound to declare selective watering if it has taken place for any reason.
Transparency in terms of going stick readings is then the next step. I fully support Hugh’s request for such readings to take place at all relevant meetings. It will be fiercely resisted by some. Not because those courses are part of a conspiracy to defraud us as punters but because total transparency will reveal frequent (often totally unpredictable biases) and many clerks, wrongly, will see the admission of such biases as a failure.There’s some way to go in this but getting clerks to open up more would be easier if they weren’t accused of lying in some quarters every time they open their mouths. What would your response be if that was your experience?
- Total Posts 17716
It’s a sad indictment on internet forums and journalists when an internet poster continually says an article doesn’t refer to watering when it clearly does.
NOTE TO SEAN –
What is wrong, however, is trying to get rid of a bias by watering, and/or without telling the racing and betting public.
That clearly appears in the original post if you read it all. Your repeated assertion that "even though watering doesn’t get a mention" holds no water at all.
No need for an apology just try harder mate.
Absolutely correct. I missed that line. Don’t know how but I did. I was discussing this very topic with Hugh just the other day and I took the focus to be the issue of communication and multiple going stick readings. Apologies to original poster and of course to Hugh.
No excuse, cock up on my part.- Total Posts 17716
Robert
All other things being equal, Beverley has a natural bias which is (was) well known and predictable. No matter what irrigation process they use, or how equal they cultivate the turf, that bias should remain predictable owing to the very shape of the course, and should indeed be accentuated by the flow of traffic that shape dictates
That it hasn’t and it isn’t is pretty much beyond doubt recently, and the inference is clearly that it has been engineered out (either temporarily or permanently) by the course executive.
There really is no need for this, (unless they’re prepared to turn such as Chester into a velodrome with staggered starts), and the clear suspicion is that it’s done for no other reason than to boost income from the levy.Sean
Ascot have long been at the forefront of providing a fair racing surface, and in providing going stick readings to substantiate it. However, even when readings across the course have shown there to be no advantage, there have always been jockeys (and journo’s) who’ve invented their own.
No doubt, it’ll be the same again this year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.