- This topic has 7 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There’s some discussion about this on page 5 of the Betfair Hurdle thread in the Big Races section. But I felt this evidence deserved a separate thread.
The clerk of the course reported the ground as heavy, soft in places yesterday morning and that was never changed before or during racing. But he knew before 10:00 that his report was inaccurate and here’s the going map that tells the true position:
http://maps.turftrax.co.uk/iframe/api_showgoing.asp?mapid=258567
That shows that only about 10% of the hurdle course was heavy and about half of the chase course. And both courses had significant stretches of good to soft in the home straight. And that’s before it had another three hours to dry out prior to the first race.
Anyone who had a bet before racing started must be livid.
Just like jockeys ,trainers and owners get punished if they make mistakes. Surely the clerk of the course shud have some sort of fine or punishment for getting things so wrong and then not owning up when their mistake becomes apparent.
As stated on the thread I quickly decided it was actually Good to Soft based on times – and on both tracks too.
Believing what CoCs say is always accurate is the road to ruin.
Do your own investigations.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I had no bets yesterday, so can’t be at all influenced by pocket.
Do punters deserve an apology from the Newbury Clerk? I think they do.
tbh Fair enough, getting going assessments right isn’t easy. I do expect them to sometimes get it one out, saying “heavy” when it’s actually “soft”. That’s understandable.
But to get a going description this wrong seems bordering on incompetence, if not worse.
As AP says, the going wasn’t even changed when they knew it was wrong.Should there be an inquiry into this? I think so
A going report this wrong can manipulate betting markets to such an extent it could be used to back or lay horses at (to in the know punters) advantageous false prices… Horses who would not have been those prices without that misleading going report. Don’t get me wrong, am not saying there was any skulduggery involved here – It is probably an accident. Am just asking whether there should be an inquiry to find out? To find out whether the Clerk or anyone that knows the Clerk backed any good-soft horses or laid any that wanted heavy.Otherwise: If there is never any inquiries when this type of thing happens… What is to stop a Clerk putting up a deliberately false going report, in order for those in the know to profit?
Value Is EverythingAgree with Kendicate. I can understand trainers and jockeys feeling aggrieved when they get hit with fines and bans but Clerks of the Course and Starters seem to get a free pass.
The times produced on Saturday at Newbury would be impossible on proper “heavy” ground.
I am presuming the races were not all over shorter than advertised…
If they were shorter by that much it would be equally as awful.
Value Is EverythingAgree it’s probably not skulduggery GT but reckon incompetence rather than “accident”, fuelled by confidence in lack of accountability. Plenty of significant non runners at Newbury on Saturday due to “going”. How many would have taken their chances and how many results would have changed? We’ll never know but we shouldn’t have to ask.
After the RP published the full result of the Game Spirit Chase I had to ask myself which racegoer/form student believes that a time 8 secs slower than standard time equals “heavy” at Newbury and not something around “good to soft”?
I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the old descriptions and instead use the number shown on the Going Stick / penetrometer for EACH part of the course. That would be more accurate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.