- This topic has 36 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Having been ideally placed (would undoubtedly have traded lower than SP) runs what can only be described as an absolute shocker. This was one of the most significant betting races of the day but where is the fall out? Again nothing on the BHA site regarding an enquiry and barely rates a mention in today’s Racing Post analysis. Are punters just supposed to bite the bullet and assume this kind of effort can be expected as part of Stoute’s awful season?
I don’t get it, Stilvi. What more is there to say other then the horse ran no race at all. Unless you want the horse brought before the stewards, I don’t know what action you want taken.
- Total Posts 17716
Yes, it’s odd. I can only think
Stilvi
would like his cash back in his pocket. That’s the usual reason for this sort of thread. Though I’d better stop being
"pompous
" before the new sock puppet gets wind of me again!
All that can be said is that the horse ran a poor race and the stable seems out of form. No need to get the Spanish Inquisition involved.
Presumably the horse would have been routine tested after the race, as this seems to standard practice in such cases.
Other than that all that will happen is that "the trainer couldn’t explain the poor run" or "the jockey reported that the horse ran flat/was never travelling(delete as required)". Neither of which telling us anything those with a little knowledge couldn’t deduce anyway.
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
Presumably the horse would have been routine tested after the race, as this seems to standard practice in such cases.
Well presumably he would – on a slight tangent Rob, do you know whether BHA publish a list of horses who’ve been so tested, apart from winners?
Pinza
I have looked and I haven’t found a list. If it is published it’s not obvious from a search of the BHA site.
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza
I have looked and I haven’t found a list. If it is published it’s not obvious from a search of the BHA site.
Rob
Thanks for looking, Rob. Maybe they could save some grief by announcing officially what’s been tested, and what’s not. It’s not as if it were kept secret, as press reports often mention routine testings of short-price failures.
- Total Posts 17716
Yes, it’s odd. I can only think
Stilvi
would like his cash back in his pocket. That’s the usual reason for this sort of thread. Though I’d better stop being
"pompous
" before the new sock puppet gets wind of me again!
.I think the word is smug, isn’t it? Ox. Eng. Dic definition #1: ‘irritatingly pleased with oneself’.
I had a conversation with a pal last week. He told me about an afternoon recently spent at a northern track where a trainer, not of the front rank but well known, attempted to make his horse lose by feeding it a bale of hay just before the race. Told the jockey connections didn’t want to win the race. Horse won anyway, jockey couldn’t stop it without making it obvious. Ha ha.
But you’re mugs if you don’t think this is common practice. Therefore, pocket talk on lower grade racing is often entirely justifiable. Get it through your heads: it isn’t grown up to be naive about why horses sometimes run shockers and lose races.
- Total Posts 17716
Therefore, pocket talk on lower grade racing is often entirely justifiable. Get it through your heads: it isn’t grown up to be naive about why horses sometimes run shockers and lose races.
You double posted this. Your logic is faulty, too. In the case of the subject of this thread, we’re not talking about low grade fare, but Richard Hughes riding for Prince Khaled on a promising young horse. This makes for classic pocket-talk.
As for your general thesis, those of us who prefer to
enjoy
our Racing rather than looking for conspiracy theories behind every single event are not naive at all.
I’d suggest to you that maybe we have the whole thing in better perspective
as a sport
than those who moan endlessly about "
fixed
" races and "
cheating
" trainers and jockeys. And if you think that’s "
smug
", it is only so from the point of view of cynics who’d be better off out of the game completely, for their own peace of mind if nothing else.
Answering pocket-fluff posts is rather like swatting mosquitoes – not much fun, but necessary unless you want to come up in lumps.
- Total Posts 17716
I think it perfectly reasonable that when a strong favourite, in one of the biggest betting races of the week, runs abysmally, questions should be asked.
More’s the pity it’s not the Newbury Stewards doing the asking.- Total Posts 17716
I think it perfectly reasonable that when a strong favourite, in one of the biggest betting races of the week, runs abysmally, questions should be asked.
More’s the pity it’s not the Newbury Stewards doing the asking.And
I
think that, as so often,
Reet Hard
is constructing mountains from molehills. We may assume, as
Rob
suggests, that the horse was routine tested afterwards. The stable’s out of form. The going was patchy. There’s no need to drag the Spanish Inquisition in to examine the case. That is, in my opinion, the "
perfectly reasonable
" course to take. So you lost some money on the race. Move on, folks.
If the horse was tested after the race, then there is probably not much more can be done until the results of the test. Admittedly such things should be in the public domain to help transparency but I doubt it would satisfy the sceptics.
I had read that connexions had opted to go for the Newbury race as they were unsure of getting into the Cambridgeshire. On the balance of his form, Labarinto had as good a chance of anything else in a £75,000 handicap. However there were enough warnings about stable form to make his price poor value. In addition, while the horse has usually run well, his winning record was far from outstanding.
If the horse were to come out and win the Cambridgeshire or the consolation race this coming weekend, then that would be another matter entirely and the trainer would deserve to be tarred and feathered.- Total Posts 17716
Patronize away, Pinza: I’ve been constructing the same mountain, from dozens of the same molehills, long before your supercilious responses to everything you don’t agree with began to blight this forum
If the Ayr stewards saw fit to inquire into the disappointing run of Pepper Lane – beaten less far, and considerably longer in the market than Labarinto – then their Newbury counterparts surely had cause to – at least – ask the question.- Total Posts 17716
Patronize away, Pinza: I’ve been constructing the same mountain, from dozens of the same molehills, long before your supercilious responses to everything you don’t agree with began to blight this forum
If the Ayr stewards saw fit to inquire into the disappointing run of Pepper Lane – beaten less far, and considerably longer in the market than Labarinto – then their Newbury counterparts surely had cause to – at least – ask the question.Isn’t it time that (1) you stopped bleating on about the
alleged manner
of my posts (if you don’t like them, ignore them please) and (2) changed the content of your repetitively constructed mountains from molehills about "bent" and "crooked" racing.
Labarinto
started at 7-2, and was overbet in a very competitive handicap simply on the strength of his connections, rather than the form.
Pepper Lane
was a mildly fancied 14-1 in the Ayr Gold Cup and finished down the pack without being ridden out – that’s what the Stewards were looking at, and there’s no sensible comparison between the two cases. Not that the facts will ever stop you demanding the Spanish Inquisition whenever you happen to feel like it. Sigh…
[PS. May I suggest you look up the meaning of the word
"patronize"
before misusing it again (if of course you mean anything at all except to make the usual
ad hominem
silly remarks). Your post says much more about you and your foibles than it does about me, of course.]
I think Sir Michael has been struggling with a bug in the yard all year. I will be looking out for any of his horses running in handicaps next year as soon as the stable looks as though it has returned to form.
In fact I think I’ll resurrect the thread I started on the harsh winter killing off theses bugs..
The horse was beaten too far out for it to be a sufficient excuse, but surely we can put to bed any idea that he was ‘ideally placed’. Stop the race turning in, and have a look where the eventual first four are.
I’m not sure what we can expect to come of cases like this. Even if the stewards went to the trouble of asking, it’s hardly likely to be an illuminating response when connections ‘couldn’t offer an explanation for the horse’s performance.
- Total Posts 17716
Therefore, pocket talk on lower grade racing is often entirely justifiable. Get it through your heads: it isn’t grown up to be naive about why horses sometimes run shockers and lose races.
You double posted this. Your logic is faulty, too. In the case of the subject of this thread, we’re not talking about low grade fare, but Richard Hughes riding for Prince Khaled on a promising young horse. This makes for classic pocket-talk.
As for your general thesis, those of us who prefer to
enjoy
our Racing rather than looking for conspiracy theories behind every single event are not naive at all.
I’d suggest to you that maybe we have the whole thing in better perspective
as a sport
than those who moan endlessly about "
fixed
" races and "
cheating
" trainers and jockeys. And if you think that’s "
smug
", it is only so from the point of view of cynics who’d be better off out of the game completely, for their own peace of mind if nothing else.
Answering pocket-fluff posts is rather like swatting mosquitoes – not much fun, but necessary unless you want to come up in lumps.
I don’t think there was anything dodgy about labarinto. I just wanted to address the absurd attitude on here about pocket talk. I am not one of those wankers who thinks he deserves to win; my attitude where gambling on horses is concerned amounts to this: once you’ve put that money in the bookie’s hand you have lost it: if any comes back it’s gravy.
The corollary to that is I reserve the right to speculate and damn well say I what I like about a ride. Mainly I don’t say much because I don’t know that much about the art of the jockey (R Hughes’ excellent column is educating me) but there is enough anecdotal evidence and often enough visually to know there are areas of this game which are frankly shady. I don’t understand why everyone is so offended by low grade racing being labelled this way. Stop every third person in the bar at Brighton races and they’ll have a story about a horse that was pulled or was doped up with painkillers to win.
Yes it is a sport and an artful one. But whether you like it or not when a horse is pulled everyone who backed it has been robbed of their money, not mention their winnings, by the trainer, connections and jockey. It may be a grey legal area but it is entirely straighforward as a moral issue. There is no way round it. It doesn’t affect you because you likely back only top class racing, which is a wise policy for a student of the Turf. Nevertheless, the low grade stuff is the tax that finances the bigger stuff, so it is in its way important.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.