February 11, 2008 at 23:57 #6648
Ignotus reappears for Alan ‘Always Trying’ Swinbank at Newcastle tomorrow, following a ‘less than dynamic’ second last time out. Thomas Thompson, who was claiming 10lb at Catterick and decided not to bother with the last two furlongs having cruised upsides the leader, is replaced by Tom Greenall.
Despite this being a seemingly better race, with Noble Alan and the certifiable bottle-job Best Prospect, how do people expect to see this one run? Will he be tailed off, or actually ridden to the line to at least <u>try</u> and get competitive?February 12, 2008 at 00:29 #142447BulwarkMember
- Total Posts 3119
Should put in a good run, a hard race to assess overall, Im thinking (may not turn out that way) that with a few decent enough bumper horses in there, noble alan expected to go well and Ignotus stepping back down in distance, that there may be a bit of a competitive pace on.
If indeed this is the case then this would not play to the strengths of Best Prospect and Mutawaffer, and i’d be tempted by a nice priced e/w on Jamestown Bay at the forecast 16-1 as he should be on the premises.
Just a thought, but Id expect Ignotus to be thereabouts if that was the case. Obviously at a slow pace i’d expect BP or Mutawaffer to be on the scene.February 12, 2008 at 01:59 #142456Fist of Fury 2k8Member
- Total Posts 2930
Noble Alan goes here with a bit of a home reputation and would be better than Andytown.
The worry is will he go on soft ground?
I would be tempted to bet Swingbanks horse EW rather than take a short price about the Richards horse who will be better when the ground dries up IMO.February 12, 2008 at 19:35 #142617Fist of Fury 2k8Member
- Total Posts 2930
Well done and well spotted LGR hardly an EW bet (my bad) but a vg winner all the same………..You think those betting shp punters are reading our mail?February 15, 2008 at 14:11 #143506davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
Looks like Swinbank is in trouble again with the horse as the BHA are claiming the horse was still suspended and shouldn’t have been allowed to run.February 15, 2008 at 14:19 #143512
At least it was trying this time…
Shouldn’t the entry of a suspended horse have been picked up sooner, presumably when the entry was actually made/confirmed?February 15, 2008 at 15:00 #143528apracingParticipant
- Total Posts 3214
Rule 17 concerning the suspensions of horses reads :
All suspensions shall commence on the third day after the stewards decision …..
So the 40 day ban would have started on Jan 4th and that suggests he’s run the horse one day too soon.
Like LGR, I’m surprised the entry was accepted, but as I’ve mentioned before, the software used on the BHA website is far from error free.
APFebruary 15, 2008 at 15:02 #143529non vintageMember
- Total Posts 1268
So potentially (if the horse was already entered), it would be possible to bring a horse out and win with it prior to the ban commencing?
Imagine that might put a few noses out of joint!!!February 15, 2008 at 15:37 #143542
If judgement was passed on 4th January, then the suspension would have ended on 13th February (the earliest date the horse could run being the 14th). If, as AP suggests, there is a 3 day ‘break’ between judgement and suspension, then the horse couldn’t technically have run until the 17th – Sunday.
Maths isn’t all that difficult, and either of the associated parties should have been able to work it out. Being 1 day out would be one thing, but 2-5 days out is nonsense.February 15, 2008 at 15:46 #143546apracingParticipant
- Total Posts 3214
The ‘non-trying’ race was at Catterick on Jan 1st, so I’m assuming the suspension started on Jan 4th.
APFebruary 15, 2008 at 15:50 #143549
My mistake, Alan, I thought you meant the decision to suspend the horse was made on the 4th.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.