- This topic has 31 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Ok I think everyone here agrees today, including the jockeys who rode in the race the, that the 1000 guineas was a bit of a joke i.e groups spliting left right and centre.
My question is why is the mile course so wide for the race. Surely todays field didnt require such a wide space of track and only encourages groups to form????
Surely Newmarket should look at resizing the width of the course to encourage close fields whilst not compromising safety???
Ive never ridden in a race before so perhaps my suggesstion has flaws but to me it appears a logical solution unless they want this sort of thing to happen again???
Could it be so that jockeys have more than enough room to ensure their mounts don’t hang into opponents and possibly affect the outcome in a close finish?
Saw them watering the course at Newmarket on TV the other day. A tractor going up the centre with a wide bar, stretching from one side of the course to the other; watering the track.
Often noticed how the stand side rail can seem favoured on the stand side track, and far side rail on the far side.
I have never heard a course say "we are not watering because it is too windy".
The bar did not seem to go far (if at all) further than the rail. Could it be that sometimes on this very open racecourse, the wind takes the decending water away from the rail? So the path closest to one rail gets little or no watering, and so is faster, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Or may be God watered one side of the track more than the other, because he was on Special Duty.
It does look as though it is more than just a pace issue.
May be the Russian Mafia bribed the watering team. (Not serious) to water parts of the surface differently. (see snooker news)
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Surely wide open spaces of that size encourage horses to drift on occasions.
Obviously with large fields wide courses are required but in my view the track is too wide for what is required..
Is the July course there as wide? Maybe it is I dont know but doesnt appear to be
The July Course has been split in two in recent times with near side and far side being used equally to make best use of the ground. I think that’s what they tend to do with the Rowley Mile as well, though I believe they use the width of the course for the bigger meetings.
Flat devotees might be able to confirm the above.
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
The Curragh I imagine would be a wide track but I often see them change the rails to decrease its width for certain race days…
I just think the race would be a better specticle and indeed a fairer race for connections and punters if they reduced the width of the track and therefore removed this groups situation we so often see.
Perhaps it is not an option, as mentioned I dont know a lot about the feasibility of this and perhaps someone on here can shed some light as to why they dont do this…
One problem though Joncol is just how narrow does a track have to be before you eliminate all draw bias? (Think of straight course at Ascot,Ayr, Doncaster.) Probably too narrow to be practical to race on. Therefore, leave a track as wide as it’s always been and let the jockeys decide if they want to tack-over to the other side.
At least with round tracks (Beverley, Chester) you know where you stand with regards to the draw so can factor that knowledge in before you bet.I mentioned this straight away on the race thread. If no action is taken you get a chance of today’s shambles being repeated – that shouldn’t be an option. You could put the stalls on the rails and reduce the width of the course considerably with no obvious safety issues.
- Total Posts 17716
Can’t have it there was a draw bias, as with most straight course races the bias followed the pace. Sent From Heaven led on the nearside rail from the start, her group was 4l clear just after halfway and the group on the outside just never got near them.
The ‘herd instinct’ took over in the following race, where again the pace was fastest on the nearside rail, but that didn’t stop Genki from rattling home in 4th place – from the outside draw, and down the centre of the course.
In the first race, albeit round a rt-hand bend, Frankie noticeably scraped the paint on the far side rail for much of the race, before going on for a comfortable win against the 16 or so ‘more favourably drawn’.Draw bias or not I don’t believe the first four home are eight lengths better than those who raced up the middle.
Hello,
I have to say there WAS a draw bias chaps. Looking at 1000 head-on, all the high drawn horses were all over the place and at least 5 lenghths behind at the furlong point.
In 3.55, if Genki was drawn stand side he would have won by a couple of lengths..
Why the disparity, watering or whatever, has to be sorted as it would be a disaster having future Classics over a straight mile on G/Sft with such a bias.
regards,
doyley
The Rowley Mile was of course already divided down the middle with the far side being rested – just as the do on the July Course until the July Meeting.
Michael Prosser used to garner criticism of a draw bias when he placed the stands on either far or stand rails. In recent years he has put them in the middle and let the jockeys ride choose their own line. Usally this means less interference but of course they jockeys do try and work out any draw bias.
- Total Posts 17716
Hello,
I have to say there WAS a draw bias chaps. Looking at 1000 head-on, all the high drawn horses were all over the place and at least 5 lenghths behind at the furlong point.
In 3.55, if Genki was drawn stand side he would have won by a couple of lengths..
Why the disparity, watering or whatever, has to be sorted as it would be a disaster having future Classics over a straight mile on G/Sft with such a bias.
Not surprisingly, I disagree; the high drawn horses were some distance behind from quite a way out.
Look at yesterday’s Guineas – the 3 horses drawn 1,2,& 3, (supposedly the faster ground today) travelled down this side of the pack for the whole race, 3 lengths down after the first furlong, and never go into the race. Dick Turpin led for virtually the whole race on the ‘unfavoured’ side of the track, and those that followed him occupied most of the first 10 places.
The only water put onto the track since was at the hand of God or Nature – neither of them known to back horses.How was that racecourse deemed fit for racing?
To have a distinct, almost ludicrous advantage to those racing on the grandstand side when a majority of jockeys in the 1,000 Guineas took to the far rail is simply ridiculous.
Please enlighten me, as an observer from afar. I am fascinated, somewhat mortified, at how the general racing population seems to have accepted this atrocity as the norm.
For the form professors out there, would you rule a line through the 1,000 Guineas as a future guide?
- Total Posts 17716
There was definitely a draw bias. For a race as important as a classic or really any group race that can’t be acceptable.
I don’t know how Newmarket address this issue but they need to.
How was that racecourse deemed fit for racing?
To have a distinct, almost ludicrous advantage to those racing on the grandstand side when a majority of jockeys in the 1,000 Guineas took to the far rail is simply ridiculous.
Please enlighten me, as an observer from afar. I am fascinated, somewhat mortified, at how the general racing population seems to have accepted this atrocity as the norm.
You are correct it is pathetic how yesterday’s debacle has just been accepted. There is absolutely nothing in today’s Racing Post about how to prevent the same thing happening again. The race was an absolute joke and that should have been a bigger story than the disqualification.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.