- This topic has 148 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TDK,
Lydia has already answered that point.
Henderson had to act initially on what was advised by vets. Had those vets been right, Binocular would have been a non-runner. Are you saying Henderson should not tell the public what the vets have concluded?
If anyone wants a horse to be immediately scratched, then we will never here of any "99% probable" injury, the horse will have to be dead for us to know about it.
Thankyou for your post Lydia. Exactly what I thought you’d say.
Value Is EverythingHenderson hasn’t done anything wrong in this case imo…
I’m proposing a new system whereby once Henderson had decided that Binocular was extremely unlikely to run, he should have sent a "horse doubtful" message to Weatherbys, so that all betting would have been suspended on the horse from the time he was made doubtful, until the time at which he became a probable runner again.
This system would prevent layers benefiting from simply knowing a horse is dead or injured.
Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia’s defence was disappointing.
Seems to me few members want to criticise other members, and it seems some think it is o.k. to say anything they like about the "establishment" / media / racecourse insiders, no matter how deflametory or untrue those remarks are.
Value Is EverythingHenderson hasn’t done anything wrong in this case imo…
I’m proposing a new system whereby once Henderson had decided that Binocular was extremely unlikely to run, he should have sent a "horse doubtful" message to Weatherbys, so that all betting would have been suspended on the horse from the time he was made doubtful, until the time at which he became a probable runner again.
This system would prevent layers benefiting from simply knowing a horse is dead or injured.
Realise that TDK, the first paragraph of my post was about your post, the second about others, not yourself.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia’s defence was disappointing.
She has done nothing wrong though? don’t see what you’re trying to get at.
Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia’s defence was disappointing.
She has done nothing wrong though? don’t see what you’re trying to get at.
That’s just it, Lydia has done nothing wrong, yet there were few members here willing to say so.
Value Is EverythingHowever, what is entirely the same in both cases is my view of those who might potentially have sought to gain an advantage by inside information during these episodes.
I, and many others, will concur with your view.
You have nothing to reproach yourself about.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Must say, the amount of trfers who went to Lydia’s defence was disappointing.
She has done nothing wrong though? don’t see what you’re trying to get at.
That’s just it, Lydia has done nothing wrong, yet there were few members here willing to say so.
Well, I’m a big scaredy cat, which is why I gave up my journalism career at an early stage!
I would like to thank Lydia for coming here and making such a clear statement.
My very simplistic reading of both incidents is as follows –
1. Bolger gave the impression that he didn’t give a jot what anyone thought and had no interest in whether the public were kept informed or not.
2. Henderson appeared to be at pains throughout this affair to keep everyone as fully up to speed as possible.
I think TDK’s idea is good but perhaps impractical. There would be a host of ‘doubtful runners’ placed on hold on betting markets every time they had a slight setback or poor gallop.
As far as I’m concerned you play the ante-post markets at your peril, particularly when you’re trying to nick the odd quid at 999/1.
If you want certainty over runners/riders then bet on the day. There is a sizeable element of rune reading when looking at ante-post market.
Fair comment cormack – the "Horse Doubtful" idea probably is a bit idealistic and impractical.
That said, I see no reason whatsoever why this system should not be implemented for horses who are dead or injured to the extent that their trainers are prepared to 100% rule them out of a race.
The trainer simply sends a time stamped "Scratched" notice through to Weatherbys and all bets are off from that point onwards…
I can see both sides here and feel that Paul had a point but that Lydia’s rebuttal is cogent and persuasive.
I would make one point however that the suggestion that JP McManus would act on inside information from his jockey or trainer in order to gain a small financial edge over Betfair punters is laughable.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for punters who back 1/999 shots as a rule, whatever the circumstances.1. Bolger gave the impression that he didn’t give a jot what anyone thought and had no interest in whether the public were kept informed or not.
2. Henderson appeared to be at pains throughout this affair to keep everyone as fully up to speed as possible.
I think thats it in a nutshell.
i think carvills point about Jp is very accurate too. For gods sake the man has had a few other things to think about in recent times and hardly needs the cash
there is a tiresome element to some posting where some like to portray themselves as the ultimate "seenitall" cynics whilst everyone else is hopelessly naive. In truth it is simply the other way round
I for one dont care what anybody says as far as Binocular is concerned! That horse had been laid out for the Champion hurdle the moment he finished 3rd in last years race!Its all a bit too coincidental that the horse has "failed" to show a repeat of his run in last years Champion until this years! Nobody can find a thing wrong with the horse,he hasn"t missed any serious work,he"s taken out of the race and drifts to 999/1,he then gets backed off the Betfair boards just before his last piece of work,which just so happens to be amazing and then wins the Champion hurdle in a hack canter! Nobody pulled the wool over my eyes as i have maintained all season he should have gone off favourite! Unbelievable is an understatement!
I would make one point however that the suggestion that JP McManus would act on inside information from his jockey or trainer in order to gain a small financial edge over Betfair punters is laughable.
Did you read Brough Scott’s piece about McManus in the Racing Post a fortnight ago? I don’t think it was formbook punters that smashed Award Winner into 2’s from 7’s at Bangor last time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.