- This topic has 66 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from Glenn on 12:39 pm on May 5, 2007[br]Yes, the horse was as green as grass and conditions weren’t ideal. Granted he was priced up on reputation as much as his one piece of form – there’s a reason for this: when a horse has run only once, against expectations, months of home work is a better predictor of likely performance.
Even so, the ride was shocking. As is often the case the market predicted it.
Glenn the horse drifted from 8/11 to 10/11 right not a huge drift but drifted all the same. I dont know what the horse was trading at on Betfair, could you enlighten me if you have the said info.<br>
<br>MM,
Did you ask yourself why Mccarthy, a jockey with a 4% strike rate this season and a substantial level stake loss on rides for Chapple-Hyam over several years, was riding this horse?
At a meeting attended by several senior jockeys that regularly ride for the stable, why choose him?
The only plausible explanation is that the horse is a difficult ride and McCarthy knows him from his home work.
To me, he looked exactly that, a difficult ride and I doubt if he’ll ever live up to expectations, at least not until he’s been gelded.
As for the Post not reporting any ban, that’s easily explained – it was the last race at 5:30 and the reporter has a deadline to meet. If the stewards held an enquiry, they probably wouldn’t bother announcing it to an empty racecourse and it usually takes about an hour for the printed reports to reach the press room anyway.
AP
Quote: from apracing on 1:47 pm on May 5, 2007[br
As for the Post not reporting any ban, that’s easily explained – it was the last race at 5:30 and the reporter has a deadline to meet. If the stewards held an enquiry, they probably wouldn’t bother announcing it to an empty racecourse and it usually takes about an hour for the printed reports to reach the press room anyway.
AP
Don’t accept that ap, big story of the day at Lingfield, more likely the reporter wanted to get home and didn’t give a monkeys. Suspensions etc have been reported for evening meetings previously.
HRA website hasn’t been updated for Friday either yet. Criticism of the RP repotrter is wide of the mark in this instance in my opinion.
Quote: from Money on on 11:45 am on May 5, 2007[br]If you want to see a "steering Job" have a look at Black Oval 22nd Jan on ATR replay.<br>
I can watch that race over and over again!!!!
"Super Sifted, soundly beaten after a slow start on her debut over 1m1/2f here in November, ran a much more eye-catching race on this occasion, keeping on under tender handling in the straight after losing her place approaching the home turn. The stewards wished to inquire into her running and riding but were unable to do so because her jockey Tom Queally had left the course. They ordered the inquiry to be convened here on May 14"
The Black Oval race, and the one in question here, are positively virginal when compared to this one, run at 4PM at Wolverhampton on the 30th April. ÂÂÂ
If you haven’t seen it, well, you’re in for a treat. It’s a shocker. The filly described above is the easy-to-back second string from the great Henry Cecil stable, responsible for the heavily backed favourite in the race and the heaviest backed horse of that day. ÂÂÂ
The quote above is a masterpiece of Racing Post diplomacy – particularly the bit about "losing her place" on the bend.
I’m really glad to see that they are enquiring into the ride and I’m looking forward to seeing the explanation.<br>
Max don’t you just love the way the Racing Post looks after the poor punters that buy it? :rolleyes:
Given the examples above, I fail to see what any of them prove, if anything, other than how stupidly incompetent the connections of these horse must be.
First, Super Sifted: Max, it is clear that you are claiming the jockey of Super Sifted was instructed that his horse should not beat its heavily backed stable mate Teodora Adivina. However, why? Why, if the Cecil’ yard were out to land a coup did they or connections or the bloke down the pub whose brother is a postman who works with the wife of a bloke who delivers Cecil’s milk. Did they back Teodara Adivina into 4/6 when clearly the better horse from the yard was available 33’s. Am I missing something here?
Secondly: Black Oval: Given an easy ride, again I ask the question why? In the race in question it was available to back at 8/1, in it’s three subsequent races in that class of race it’s been 4/1 6/1 & 11/2, admittedly in its last race it was available at 66’s. But this was a Class 3 race and it finished where it should have done – out the back. So, where’s the coup? Or more to the point what was the point?
In my view, it happens: I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, so factor it in to your price and lets all move on or don’t bet.
…………….but this is a horse-racing forum and it is not surprising that people want to talk about horse-racing.;)
Colin
Fair point seabird…and I’m not suggesting these things shouldn’t be discussed also personally I do happen to find it entertaining. However, what I am suggesting is it’s all part of the game, it’s not right and shouldn’t happen and if I had the power I would stop tomorrow, but this is it.
If we don’t accept that these things do/will happen the whole injustice we feel, either morally or in our pocket, will consume us and whatever love of racing we have will be eroded away imo.
Agreed, Pete.
For some the intrigue. perceived or not, is a vital part of the attraction of the sport.
Colin
- Total Posts 17716
Totally agree, Pompete.<br>It happens, has done for centuries and, despite it being sensationalised at the present time, probably happens now less than ever before.<br>Racing’s rulers are aware of it, always have been, and, a few hapless jockeys sacrificed apart, continue to turn a blind eye to it.<br>Nobody’s going to change it, particularly ovenight, so get used to it, learn to live with it, make it an integral part of the selection process, and use that knowledge to your own advantage as the opposition do.<br>Unless anyone on here fancys throwing themselves under this year’s Derby winner, maybe.:biggrin:
Just because something "has always happened", does not make it acceptable, RH. I would love to have seen the reaction in both Australia and Hong Kong to this ride. (Or France – though the fact the filly was double carpet may have failed to stir the Turfistes from their coffee and gauloise).
Pompete, I made no such allegation about Cecil’s involvement. For all I know, sunspot activity in the constellation of Cygnus was responsible for the ride. I stated what I saw and offered it up for discussion.
I back everyday; and in two years this is the only time I have ever felt the need to comment on this kind of thing. And I gave it a week before I did so in the interest of reasoned debate.
The race needs looking at and I found out only last night that the Stewards plan to do so. This is excellent news
Quote: from apracing on 1:47 pm on May 5, 2007[br]<br>MM,
Did you ask yourself why Mccarthy, a jockey with a 4% strike rate this season and a substantial level stake loss on rides for Chapple-Hyam over several years, was riding this horse?
At a meeting attended by several senior jockeys that regularly ride for the stable, why choose him?
The only plausible explanation is that the horse is a difficult ride and McCarthy knows him from his home work.
AP<br>
The ride looked the complete opposite of someone who knew the horse ap and Chapple-Hyam stated he wanted the horse prominently ridden.<br>Anyway the 14 day ban has been confirmed despite McCarthy’s lame excuse, it will interesting to see if Chapple-Hyam puts him up again.
A harsh ban. It’s all well and good Chapple Hyam saying he wanted the horse to be ridden prominently. Not that easy once the horse missed the break from his low draw and struggled to put one leg in front of the other in the early stages.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.