- This topic has 97 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Following on from Aiden and Frankies fallout, I don’t understand how pacemakers can be allowed in races.
I don’t know the exact wording but in laymens terms it is that horses have to run on their merits to obtain the best possible position. Going off to fast is just as much a crime as pulling a horse, so why do the stewards never look at this?
Tis an interesting point you make, should they be deemed "non triers" , should a horse be took out of the betting if deemed Pacemaker or should they be coupled just in case one happens to go to win
I can understand what you’re saying but pacemakers do have their place. If there weren’t any pacemakers there would be a lot of complaints about falsely run group ones.
Personally I think pacemakers should be listed in racecards (PM) then from betting purposes its there for everyone to see.
You have to understand that horses are HERD animlas.
And the problem is that some are used to seeing their immediate friends, and running in a certain way in training etc. <br>If you then suddennly have a different kind of pace, the horse will not run well. You could therefore say that a horse was not trying its best because the trainer hadn’t ensured that a horse that need a friend to make the pace to be entered.
I have seen a number of such pacemakers win races. Even the training races in France for young yockeys where a top jockey ‘s on a pacemaker.
So to say they are not trying is silly…it is just usually they will not stay, and just ensure a good gallop so that the main horse will follow at a good pace…instead of letting the race wide open for something with a turn of foot to come off a muddling pace.
So pacemakers must be allowed. It is up to the punter to work out whether by some fluke they could stay….look for the odd one with (d) next to it…he may be worth an e/w. An dpersonally I really get a kick out of backing them in those circumstances.
Often it is the press that interpret a horse as a pacemanker rather than a horse that is also trying in its own right. Godolphin in partcular hace had a number of such winners like that.
It was assumed tat grren Green Desrt was a pacemaker for Call Equiname in the queen mpther hence his odds of 100/1. But most people knew he was ther in hic own right. yes…sometimes trainers like Pipe and Nicholls run a "herd" in a race. It is up to the punter….and do not be misled by press who do not uderstand herd psychology<br>to work out the likely one to assert. I think such things probide fascinating possibilities.
I remember Pipe running a few horses in the Coral cup I think it was. Two of his outsiders were Big Strand, and Allegation. The two jockeys were arguing who was likely to come out on top. The betting public and press ignored what they saw as horses with little chance. But the plan was I assume for the horse to compete against each other and raise their game. It worked. I had the forecast. Nothing crooked. Just ignorance of horse…and jockey…rivalry playing a big factor. It didn’t mean Pipe’s other horses were not trying…just that one would be looking to catch the other at the end, and with a bit of luck it would work.
I see such things on the gallops every day…that rwo partcular horsres bounce off each other. It is a normal herd dynamic. You often see Nicholls and Pipe horses looking around for each other…either for camaraderie or rivalry.
A pacemaker is used on the gallops this way and a horse gets used to pacing himself perfectly and passing the lead horse at the right moment.
In a race …they don’t always follow…so sometimes the pacemaker can win.
It is fascinating…leave it be.
(Edited by GreenGreenDesert at 6:16 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)
Quote: from GreenGreenDesert on 5:53 pm on Sep. 25, 2006[br]You have to understand that horses are HERD animlas.
And the problem is that some are used to ssing their immediate friends, and running in s certain way in training etc. <br>If you then suddennly have a different nind of pace, the horse will not run well. You could therefore say that a horse was not trying its best because the trainer hadn’t ensured that a horse that need a friend to make the pace to be entered.
I have seen a number of such pacemakers win races. Even the training races in France for young yockeys wher a top jockey s on a pacemaker.
So to say they are not rtying is silly…it is just usually they will not stay, and just ensure a good gallop so that the main horse will follow at a good pace…instead of letting the race wide open for something with a turn of foot to come off a muddling pace.
So pacemakers must be allowed. It is up to the punter to work out whether by some fluke they could stay….look for the odd one with (d) next to it…he may be worth an e/w.
I dont think anyone would disagree with what you say but I think the point of the first poster is that in some way, if the rule states that a horse must be ridden to achieve the best possible position, a pacemaker is breaking the rule cause everyone knows that with restraint he probably would achieve a better position.
I havent read the jockey club rules but a pace maker is part of blatant team tactics so what is the position of the authorities on that??
SHL
I think pacemakers should be declared as such and discounted from the market. If they pass the post in a money-earning position they should forfeit the money (unless there are only six runners and the money goes that far).
If connections don’t declare them as PMs and they then go off too fast then the stewards should have them up for riding an unjudicious race and failing to secure the best possible position, which is something I’ve been trying to argue for yonks.
Pacemakers are a very important part of racing and should never be banned, racing is better for having pacemakers, you can say that there are good horses who havent needed pacemakers but there are plenty who are better for having them.
If george hadnt had a pacemaker setting thepace (which wasnt even ivan denisovich anyway) he might not have won in such fine style. in which case the racing public would not have seen such a great performance.
It is a fact of racing that most of its good horses are highly strung. And it is a common trait of highly strung horses that they will pull the bit all the way if they see too much daylight early on, so rather than racing from the front they settle them in behind. However if the horse wants a good sound gallop, you can either leave it to chance or put in a pace setter to ensure a good sound gallop.
Sometimes a pacesetter can spoil a race, like in the case of cherry mix in the king george, i firmly beleive that if hearts cry had beem allowed to set the fast pace which he likes then hurricane run could have been the type of horse to break the track record.
However godolphin wanted a slow gallop for electrocutionist (and probably didnt want doyens track record to be beaten) so cherry mix fought for the early lead with hearts cry and once he won the battle electrocutionist moved forward. As a result we missed out on a great king george and got a bunched finish instead.
Dettoris opinions clearly differ with how the result suits him, i think he should dry up and employ the term "sportsmanlike". I agree with aiden o’brien all the way.
If they pass the post in a money-earning position they should forfeit the money
That would defeat the purpose….a pace maker is only followed if they can win the race or win place money. Otherwise no one would bother following them.
<br> Pacemakers are the bane of european racing and should be frowned upon as they are in both Australia and North America,to name but two examples.It negates the value of tactical speed,that which is required to obtain a forward position in running,and so disqualifies the chances of a whole group of runners.Mark Johnson for one would benefit greatly by the outlawing of pacemakers as he can prouduce adaptable,hard hitting,front runners who find plenty when challenged.A quality stable jockey to go with it would be a bonus.<br> American horses are confronted with a training regime that requires them to work alone ,amid much more bustle,and to think for themselves.Europeans are, comparatively speaking, mentally soft working as they do by playing follow the leader.Hell,George Washington takes half the shedrow with him on raceday.That is why there lies great danger in judging former European form for ex pat horses in the US on an equivalent basis.If there is a stakes race in the US that pays at least the cost of entry down to sixth place it gaurentees 7 runners,all trying to gain the best possible placing and everyhorse for him/herself.As it should be.
bzm.
Quote: from Aidan on 8:12 pm on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
If they pass the post in a money-earning position they should forfeit the money
That would defeat the purpose….a pace maker is only followed if they can win the race or win place money. Otherwise no one would bother following them.<br>
Not always although the best pacemakers are those just short of the required class.
You’re missing my point, though. If they want to declare them as pacemakers they do so on the understanding that there is no financial reward for them. They’re there purely to set the pace for a stable companion. The rest can ignore it but the stablemate ideally shouldn’t. Otherwise don’t declare them as pacemakers and then they may well be ridden to achieve the best possible place.
Quote: from Maurice on 10:35 pm on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
Quote: from Aidan on 8:12 pm on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
If they pass the post in a money-earning position they should forfeit the money
That would defeat the purpose….a pace maker is only followed if they can win the race or win place money. Otherwise no one would bother following them.<br>
Not always although the best pacemakers are those just short of the required class.
You’re missing my point, though. If they want to declare them as pacemakers they do so on the understanding that there is no financial reward for them. They’re there purely to set the pace for a stable companion. The rest can ignore it but the stablemate ideally shouldn’t. Otherwise don’t declare them as pacemakers and then they may well be ridden to achieve the best possible place.
THAT wouldnt work because the pacemaker is often in the race to ensure theres a fast pace for something else to come off of. If your the only one that follows the pacemaker, you essentially the pacemaker for somethingelse.
SHL
I once followed the o’brien/coolmore operation quite solidly and i find that they breed almost everything (or buy everything) from very high up the northern dancer line). However, in the case of northern dancers (and mr prospectors) speed sires (storm cat/danzig/danehill/nureyev- very popular at coolmore), they are almost all very highly strung, quirky, aggressive horses and are bought for their raw ability, not their temperament.
A lot of these horses are so quirky that they dont even make it to the track, the ones that do are usually good however, if you get one with a good attitude they are usually group1 class, and in the case of horses like GW they are world beaters as his raw ability and aggressive nature transfer to the track as power and competetiveness.
The fact that some of these horses need pacesetters is just common sense really, you dont want to train the aggressiveness out of a horse who is probably better for being aggressive. It is a fullscale operation trying to get george to the start without him losing the rag, but what he can do when he gets there is worth the effort.
It is worth noting that pace makers do not always work, but they can be an effective tool for getting a horse to do what you want it to. I also agree with the concept of ponying a horse to the start if necessary.
All in all, I would rather see a great horse with an entourage than an average horse with none, pacemakers are mainly just used in big races anyway and you seldom see them in the weekday races.
So are we agreed on the whole then that pacemakers are okay?
Because I would hate for this to be clouding the jockey club’s head….they already seem to think like punters that horses are machines.
Horses are herd animlas and they follow leaders. That is <br>essentially the issue and therefore, if we are consideruing HORSES and their psychology/welfare at all in this we should recognise it as a leigitimate tactic.
if the pavemaker then wins (which is as far as I can see the only problem) as he sometimes does then he cannot be accused of being a non trier.
What NEXT?
Do you want horses running in lanes? Stalls for jumps?<br>Every horse to have a ninimum of 5 stroles of the whip to ensure he is trying but no more than six as its cruel?
Maybe horses to be ridden by electronic monkeys so no cheating can happen?
Every horse to be ridden as fast as poss from the word go?
A pacemaker is a legitimate tactic becuse it is about herd<br>dynamics.
Yes sometimes they get in the way. And that is another variable of herd dynamics that makes racing so fascinating and difficult to predict.
Personally I like it when you see horses biting at each other for the lead, jossling each other etc. At the end of the day it is about who is good enough to lead and the best will always try to get through.
Pacemakers have always been part of big racedays. Serious alleged foul play such as last Saturday can be dealt with by the stewards. <br>Even if you do believe that Heffernan did use ‘team tactics’ the result was never in doubt. I am not aware of an occasion in the past where the result has been influenced by team tactics. (except maybe Shergar Cup)<br>So is a rule change necessary, I don’t think so.
- Total Posts 438
Quote: from jonny1ph on 10:26 am on Sep. 28, 2006[br]I am not aware of an occasion in the past where the result has been influenced by team tactics.
<br>You ‘ve never heard of the 1992 Cheltenham Gold Cup? Am I glad that Toby Tobias didn’t win.
Quote: from yquem21 on 10:43 am on Sep. 28, 2006[br]
Quote: from jonny1ph on 10:26 am on Sep. 28, 2006[br]I am not aware of an occasion in the past where the result has been influenced by team tactics.
<br>You ‘ve never heard of the 1992 Cheltenham Gold Cup? Am I glad that Toby Tobias didn’t win.
I thought it was very intriguing at the time and I think Pitman did nothing wrong. I do remember it divided a lot of people at the time.
SHL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.