- This topic has 46 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Black, bit harsh toward Glen, do you not think? Is it fair to get personal when he’s only expressed a view? I think not.
Beginning to sound like a broken record on this sort of topic.
If we had the rule that allows the stewards to deem a horse a non runner if it was ‘denied a fair start’ i.e blind left on, rider not on its back when stalls opened, starter didn;t see it was not with the rest of them etc. then this could be
far more fairly dealt with
and more importantly there would be no reward for any skullduggery.
Would still be the odd grey area (poss today) but currently like with the Cwyfrws stalls incident the only option they had in that case was to void the whole race or let in stand when it was obvious the stall had bounced back and impeded his exit after he tried to force it open slightly early.
Richard,
I am not in favour of stewards deeming horses who do not start as non-runners. The vast majority of them can be seen by form students as having poor temperaments. Therefore their prices are higher because bookmakers / layers recognise the horse might whip round at the start or run out, or not go through with it’s effort. If non-starting horses were deemed non-runners would it be fair? Unlike lazy punters, form students can identify a poor temperament horse; they will have to pay for any non-runners out of their winnings (rule 4). This would be unfair on them and will not be a victimless rule. In 24 years of betting I have never backed a non-starter.You say there would be no reward for skullduggery. What about the connections of an awkward starter or usually poor temperament horse. Who, after having a big bet, instructs the jockey not to start if the horse is in a poor mood or can not get the horse away with the others.
The start is all part of the race, part of the skill of the jockey and temperament of the horse. We do not allow a horse to be a non-runner when falling at the first so why should we at the start once the tape goes up?
In this case, however, it is purely the fault of Magnier and not the horse. So would not complain in this instance, if a rule 4 was taken. Having sympathy with my fellow punters. But only if the jockey recieved a hefty ban. If it is impossible to differentiate between jockey error and horse temperament then I’d rather have no rule 4 for this type of thing.
Mark
Value Is EverythingGinger wrote:We do not allow a horse to be a non-runner when falling at the first …
Independent bookie near me refunds stake for first and last fence fallers plus any faller at any point in a hurdle race.Independants have to do anything they can as a gimmick to draw punters in Ken.
To pull the horse off the heels of the horse in front is one thing. To take a turn before the starter has told you to do so is stupid.
Mark
Value Is EverythingPoor from the starter – it’s clear from the replay of the race that at least one of the other jockeys heard Magnier shout and from watching the replay this was BEFORE the starter let them go.
But for nepotism, JP would have had no choice but to give up riding a very long time ago.
- Total Posts 170
I must admit – I think of myself as a seasoned punter in the sense that I bet regularly – however,I would not claim to be experienced enough to understand all of the complexities of racing.
However, I went to Kempton yesterday with 3 other couples and of the 8 of us, only 2 of us were regular race goers. 3 of the 8 (admittedly, myself included) had backed the horse in question.
I must hold my hands up and I thought we would get our money back as we never passed the start line. Now, no doubt – this is my inexperience as it was not the case. When asked by the ‘first-timers’ why they would not get their money back as their horse had not started, I just kind of shrugged. I also thought that it is not really clear on course. I.e. there should be an annoucment made or something put on the big screen to explain the incident.
For the non ‘in the know’ there is just no explanation.
It wasn’t big money – not at all – but they felt they had not had a run for their money and it literally just added to their view that they shared prior to the meet through Fallon/ panarama etc that racing was a fun yet expensive day out and was ‘still’ bent as it comes…..
Now, I do not share that thought process in the slightest. However, it does itself no favours in situations such as this.
Glenn you state
The notion that a betting coup could revolve around getting a paper fav to effectively take no part in a bumper is the stuff of Dick Francis novels. It surely couldn’t happen in the real world.
Okay, let’s say that an owner had made tens of thousands of pounds opposing his horse under such circumstances. How would he get away with it? There is no doubt that the BHA would be all over him like a ton of bricks.
You are so wrong..
Dermot Browne whipped Brownes Gazette round at the start of the Champion Hurdle losing many lengths and the race in the process.
Something he admitted doing on purpose many years later costing punters a fortune. I do not however know who benefitted.
He got warned off and I beleive he is still warned off, however he was one of the first jockeys to openly admit that racing is corrupt.
I will go no further lest it upsets some of the die hards who beleive racing is not corrupt
- Total Posts 17716
If it has been made subsequently clear that the starter was at fault – though I still don’t doubt the idiocy of ‘Mini Magnier’ – then fair enough.
I have held a very dim view of starters ever since Intersky Falcon lost all chance in Rooster Booster’s Champion Hurdle. The venom with which they lambast supposedly errant jockeys is unbefitting of the professional horsemen they are (well, in some cases at least) and I can’t count the number of times a race has gone off late because the old boy’s Stena Stairlift hasn’t reached the stop of his stand in time.
Why can’t racecourse stewards be used to start races, rather than somebody’s angry grandad who likely struggles to see beyond the far rail and would be lost without his flat cap?
Twenty-five replies and not a single reference to a washing-machine or a sack-of-spuds.
Standards are slipping.
Twenty-five replies and not a single reference to a washing-machine or a sack-of-spuds.
Standards are slipping.
"No idea" hit the nail on the head, with a "fist" like response!
I know the Starter extremely well and saw him today as he was officiating at Fontwell. After winding him up that he should have gone to Specsavers (well I couldn’t resist!), he said he just didn’t hear him shout and had looked ready.
His experience in racing goes back a very long way. He race-rode in his early and then spent probably 10 years as second travelling head lad for Cumani before joining Godolphin as the outset and was first travelling head lad until he got this job about 2 years ago. He is totally genuine and I believe 100% at his job.
"I know the Starter extremely well"
That sounds extremely interesting, jinnyj, would you like to expand?
Colin
Beginning to sound like a broken record on this sort of topic.
If we had the rule that allows the stewards to deem a horse a non runner if it was ‘denied a fair start’ i.e blind left on, rider not on its back when stalls opened, starter didn;t see it was not with the rest of them etc. then this could be far more fairly dealt with and more importantly there would be no reward for any skullduggery.
Would still be the odd grey area (poss today) but currently like with the Cwyfrws stalls incident the only option they had in that case was to void the whole race or let in stand when it was obvious the stall had bounced back and impeded his exit after he tried to force it open slightly early.
Don’t agree with that, why should the start of a race be a special case, other parts of the race are just as important. Is there any evidence that the start of a race has more skullduggery than the rest? Surely if a horse is to be withdrawn from a race it needs to be done before the start, not after the race by a team of "boffins". What if the said horse goes on to win the race eg Run for Free in the Scottish National, wouldn’t you like a bet on one of those, a free bet if it wins and a refund if it loses.
Why should backers of other horses in a race be penalised for the recalcitrance of a horse or incompetance of a jockey? A starter is for starting a race.
A simple solution to not leaving a blindfold on would be to remove it before the race starts, not as the stalls open.
What about that bumper in Ireland a few weeks ago where there was a ridiculous rail jutting out on the run in, surely backers of one of those horses which was carried into the rail is more entitled to a refund and has been more "unfairly" treated than backers of the likes of Bellvano as they would have won the race, Bellvano still had it to do.
I’m afraid backing horses is dealing with risks of all sorts, you may just be unlucky at times.
As for Bellvano, what stopped the jockey going after them 20 lengths behind, bumpers are often run at funereal pace, maybe the lad’s just not hungry enough but why should backers of other horses in that race be penalised for that?
Simon Morant or Mervyn Smith 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.