- This topic has 41 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I dislike making the same mistake over and over, but there I go again. Dismissing a Luca Cumani trained animal (Kazbow) in the 3:25 handicap at Doncaster, for the most trivial of reasons. In its last two races, both on suitable ground, both over a suitable distance, it was beaten 50 lengths (five weeks ago) and 42 lengths (two weeks ago). I even checked the BHA “Why they ran badly” web-page, and found that no reason had been given for such poor runs. No gurgles, no bumps, no lameness, no slipped saddle, no mention of any excuse at all. He was well in at the weights, but woefully out of form. So I dismissed the horse from my thoughts. Big mistake. Will I never learn?
I have seen a few threads on here recently when novice punters want advice on how to read form. I think one of the tricks is to know on which occasions form matters, and on which occasions it doesn’t.
Cumani as been doing it for years. Nothing new with him, as you say it is just a case of knowing when.
He is a master.From the BHA –
Doncaster, 24 June 2011
The Stewards considered the apparent improvement in form of the winner KAZBOW (IRE), ridden by J-P Guillambert and trained by Luca Cumani, compared with its previous run at York on 10th June, where it finished unplaced, beaten approximately 42 lengths. Having received a report of the trainer’s representative’s explanation that the gelding was suited by a drop in trip and today’s faster ground they decided not to hold an enquiry. The Stewards ordered KAZBOW (IRE) to be routine tested.
(The smiley is me – not the BHA – obviously (‘obviously’ has slipped into my vocab somehow, somewhere, can’t think where I’ve heard it)
A man is known by the company he keeps.
Jockeys used by L Cumani this season:
K Fallon – 62 rides
J-P Guillambert – 29 rides
K Milczarek – 15 rides
- Total Posts 17716
A drop in trip to the same distance, and on the same ground, it was beaten by 50l over on his first outing of the season?
Just how easy is it to pull the wool over racecourse stewarding, and is there any wonder that trainers do it with such gay abandon?You have said it all guys.
The only way to deal with this issue is to remove the bookmakers beloved handicap racing.
The system is wide open to manipulation.
This, in my opinion was very well organised. To throw we "mugs" off the trail the jockey you would expect to to ride it never went to the meeting for the ride, and never rode a winner elsewhere either.
Perhaps it was a surprise to the connections ?
Whatever !
Its no wonder the public are scepticalThe only thing stopping more rigourous examination is that it’s such a common, unproveable occurence that investigative resources would be inadequate. By a factor of x 10. (inaccurate estimate possibly – obviously)
I think you guys are a little harsh. Only a little mind.
I agree, am surprised there was no official excuse given last time. But other than that I don’t think Cumani did anything wrong.
Kazbow was off almost a year before his reappearance. Obviously injured. So it wasn’t surprising it didn’t run well on his first start back. Probably needed it.
On June 10th he was 20/1, so clearly not fancied. May be still needed it. Ran better than finishing position suggests, being up there some way before probably losing his action.
(Edit this out if copyright issues) Timeform Perspective "showed more than a glimmer of last year’s ability only to stop worryingly quickly for the second time in as many starts since his injury-enforced lay off, striding out awkwardly as he wilted".
If fully over what ailed him stood a reasonable chance. Backed in to 7/1 from 10’s, so he’d probably shown something of his old sparkle at home.
I agree with Marginal Value in that sometimes you can look further than recent form. As in: If there might have been a reason for the poor run last time; and there is good money for it – there is a fair chance of a return to form. Especially if the trainer is in good form himself.
If there might have been a reason for a poor run last time; and there is apparently no money for the horse, don’t expect a return to form. Especially if the trainer is in poor form.Value Is EverythingYou have said it all guys.
The only way to deal with this issue is to remove the bookmakers beloved handicap racing.
The system is wide open to manipulation.What is the alternative Coggy? Claimers would have exactly the same problem.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
"Harsh"
is surely an understatement,
Ginger
!
If anything, I’d have thought that people ought to be praising Luca Cumani unreservedly for still managing to keep cloning those hat rabbits after so many years of bamboozling us all.
He’s a trainer who clearly enjoys this kind of stunt, and he’s very, very good at it. It’s great gamesmanship. It’s great fun. It’s great training. What’s not to like?
This is a sport after all, folks, and not an episode of
The Moral Maze
.
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just advocating a free-for-all on integrity?Ginger
It matters not what the answera are; it matters a great deal that the question was never asked – nor ever is, beyond a horse’s previous outing.- Total Posts 17716
Pinza
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just advocating a free-for-all on integrity?I am not,
Reet
, and I think my meaning is quite clear. Though my post was certainly intended to make people question what they expect from the Sport – or any sport.
I get tired of hearing Racing talked about as if it were some kind of Truth Commission or rigorous Moral Crusade. I like the sport because it gives individuals as astute as Luca Cumani the chance to show off their wits, without breaking the rules. I admire the intelligent way he campaigns his animals. It’s what gives him the edge over some of his fellow trainers.
It is in no sense "wrong" or against the spirit of the game. It brings me pleasure. I am not alone in that.
Pinza
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just advocating a free-for-all on integrity?Ginger
It matters not what the answera are; it matters a great deal that the question was never asked – nor ever is, beyond a horse’s previous outing.Reet,
If you look, I am agreeing. Cumani or Fallon should have given a reason for the capitulation on June 10th prior to yesterday.
What I do have a problem with, is the barely veiled incinuation Cumani did not run the horse on its merits previously this season. There is absolutely NO evidence of that.
No skulduggery involved, just a jockey / trainer combination not giving the reason for the poor run. And in truth, sometimes connections don’t know what the physical problem actually was, they just know when the horse comes right.
Value Is Everything"Harsh"
is surely an understatement,
Ginger
!
If anything, I’d have thought that people ought to be praising Luca Cumani unreservedly for still managing to keep cloning those hat rabbits after so many years of bamboozling us all.
He’s a trainer who clearly enjoys this kind of stunt, and he’s very, very good at it. It’s great gamesmanship. It’s great fun. It’s great training. What’s not to like?
This is a sport after all, folks, and not an episode of
The Moral Maze
.
Interested to know if you ever bet, the indications are you don’t but perhaps you could confirm. It is very easy to take the views that you do if you have no financial interest.
As for Cumani despite what you describe as ‘great training’ (others might suggest pulling the wool over people’s eyes might be nearer the truth) his career has gone backwards. Take away their own stud and the backing of one Greek owner and there isn’t a lot there. He was significant 20-30 years ago but is now no more than a relative bit-part player at the top table.
If this wasn’t Cumani /Fallon involved nobody would be taking any interest. Found guilty by reputation. Yes, they should have said something on June 10th, but so should dozens of trainers / jockeys every day of the week. Including Stoute, Cecil, Dettori and Moore.
Get a good form book Stilvi, the clues were there.
Value Is EverythingIn the same way as Cumani / Kasbow, what about Sir Henry / Twice Over?
On Jim (C4) McGrath’s website his review of the Prince of Wales says of Twice Over "his fore-hooves looked to have been packed with resin/something similar, suggesting that he’s perhaps had a problem with his feet since returning from Dubai".
Has Sir Henry given any reason on the "Why they ran poorly" BHA site for either Lockinge (wasn’t just speed that made him run so poorly) or Prince Of Wales? I backed Twice Over (on value grounds) in both races and would not have done so had I known (as the resin like substance suggests) he’d had a foot problem or even a possibility of a problem.
We’re not going to know about every horse’s injury / reason to run poorly. But the BHA’s initiative is a step in the right direction.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.