Pacemakers

[Anonymous]

The only man to have made effective use of pacemakers in the past few seasons has been Jim Bolger.

Mmmmm; Some guy in the Weekender recently awarded Frankie the ‘ride of the week’ on Blue Bunting in the Yorkshire Oaks, though she’s a point and shoot ride whose win was only made possible by the brilliant job done by William Buick on the aforementioned Rumh. Going off just fast enough to drag the others along with her, the jockey gradually increased the pace until turning in, where he kicked off with enough zest to take the sting out of the opposition. Even Hughsie, doing a short stint in the Ch4 commentary box, was drooling at the artistry.
Little wonder they want to supplement Rumh for the Leger; though I agree with the OP it’s against the rules of racing, it’s just another form of horses not running on their merit that the authorities choose to turn a blind eye to.

[andyod]

Leaving the rail for a teammate to go up the inner is affecting the outcome since it allows your team mate to take the shorter way home. If you box in the second horse then you affect the outcome again since the report of the race said that Confront was finally tailed off.If you are to be tailed off then you should leave the scene when the pace setting is done not interfere with other horses as Confront did by keeping going after his job was done.He was in effect now in the way.

[Anonymous]

Andy

, your posts are contradictory. First you say that pacemakers

"should go wide"

when their job is done. Then you say Confront was culpable for doing

precisely

that, to let his stablemate through. All of which shows how impracticable it would be to start making up rules on the hoof (as it were) to cover the situation.

The idea that a horse going off too quickly is

"against the rules of racing"

is sheer nonsense. What’s against the rules of racing is

failing to ride out your horse to gain the best possible placing

– and "riding out your horse too quickly" is not mentioned, again for sensible, practical reasons.

Pacemakers

are

ridden out, and they gain the

best possible placing they can

– given the decision to ride them out quickly. That is

not

against the rules. Nor should it be. Unless, as I’ve said, you prefer French pace. And which of you does that?

[Gingertipster]

The idea that a horse going off too quickly is

"against the rules of racing"

is sheer nonsense.

I ask you the same question (or a version of it) then Pinza:

Surely it is against the "rules of racing" for

any

horse (not just pacemakers) racing at

2 miles

, to go off at

5 furlong speed

; so to

deliberately

lose the race? (Which in a less exaggerated way pacemakers sometimes do).

If that is not against the "rules of racing", then it is a license to stop horses.

Think it is you who is talking "sheer nonsense" on this occasion Pinza.

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

The idea that a horse going off too quickly is

"against the rules of racing"

is sheer nonsense.

I ask you the same question (or a version of it) then Pinza:

Surely it is against the "rules of racing" for

any

horse (not just pacemakers) racing at

2 miles

, to go off at

5 furlong speed

; so to

deliberately

lose the race? (Which in a less exaggerated way pacemakers sometimes do).

If that is not against the "rules of racing", then it is a license to stop horses.

Think it is you who is talking "sheer nonsense" on this occasion Pinza.

In hope of generating a little more light than heat,
here is the relevant section of the rule book:

5

7. Assisting another horse in the race

57.1

A Rider must not

57.1.1

make a manoeuvre in a race in the interests of another horse in Common Ownership or under common control or from the same stable or team, whether or not such a manoeuvre causes interference or causes his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing, or

57.1.2

contravene any provision of this Part with the intention or with the consequence of giving advantage to another horse in Common Ownership or under common control or from the same stable or team.

57.2

Nothing in Paragraph 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such.

57.3

Where a Rider is found to have contravened the prohibition in Paragraph 57.1, the Trainer of the horse shall also be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by this Rule.

57.4

The Stewards may decide not to take Disciplinary Action against a Trainer under Paragraph 57.3 if the Trainer satisfies them that he instructed his Rider to treat every other horse in the race without any favour, however the race developed, and that the Rider acted regardless of such instructions.

57.5

Common ownership means that the horses in question share one or more owners in common and common control shall be similarly construed.

Now

Ginger

, the only reference here to

"best possible placing"

is to limit that objective by

pg 57.2: "Nothing in 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such".

I think I have demonstrated my point:

pacemaking

is

actively encouraged

by the rules as they stand, provided no

"manoeuvre"

is used. Although there might be debate over the meaning of "manoeuvre" in this context, it’s clearly nothing to do with "going off too fast".

"Best possible placing"

is rendered irrelevant by the pacemaking rule.

[andyod]

Pinza ; by going wide I meant that precisely. By letting a stable mate up your inner I meant that also.Going wide takes you completely out of the race(four horses or more wide at least) letting your mate up the inner does not,you go one horse wide only and so stay in the race.After all a pacemakers job is done when overtaken and passed by the star horse for whom he made the pace.Hence he should make way for a proper race.Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.Perhaps the racing authorities should supply the pacemaker for all races when requested to do so by any of the participating stables.Just a crazy idea I know.

[Gingertipster]

In hope of generating a little more light than heat,
here is the relevant section of the rule book:

5

7. Assisting another horse in the race

57.1

A Rider must not

57.1.1

make a manoeuvre in a race

in the interests of another horse in Common Ownership or under common control or from the same stable or team, whether or not such a manoeuvre causes interference or

causes his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing

,

57.2

Nothing in Paragraph 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such.

Now

Ginger

, the only reference here to

"best possible placing"

is to limit that objective by

pg 57.2: "Nothing in 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such".

I think I have demonstrated my point:

pacemaking

is

actively encouraged

by the rules as they stand, provided no

"manoeuvre"

is used. Although there might be debate over the meaning of "manoeuvre" in this context, it’s clearly nothing to do with "going off too fast".

"Best possible placing"

is rendered irrelevant by the pacemaking rule.

I disagree Pinza, I think rule 57.1.1 means a jockey on a pacemaker is not allowed to make any

manoeuvre

(including going off

deliberately too fast for its own good

) which "causes his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing".

As rule 57.2 says, "Nothing in Paragraph 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such". ie Nothing wrong with pacemakers as long as the jockey keeps within the rules.

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

I disagree Pinza, I think rule 57.1.1 means a jockey on a pacemaker is not allowed to make any

manoeuvre

(including going off

deliberately too fast for its own good

) which "causes his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing".

As rule 57.2 says, "Nothing in Paragraph 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such". ie Nothing wrong with pacemakers as long as the jockey keeps within the rules.

I was afraid the debate might become semantic! But for what it’s worth, I do not see that

manoeuvre

can possibly bear that construction. The (relevant) primary meanings from a dictionary definition would be:

1.

a contrived, complicated, and possibly deceptive plan or action

2.

a movement or action requiring dexterity and skill

For

1.

"Going off too fast" can’t be

contrived

(it is a momentary decision at or near the start),

complicated

(it’s simple) or

deceptive

(everyone expects a pacemaker to do just that.)

For

2:

"Going off too fast" is not a single

movement

, or a distinct

action

which needs

dexterity

and/or

skill

– any half-trained horseman could do it.

"Going off too fast" is therefore not within the limits of any possible construction borne by the word

manoeuvre

.

[Anonymous]

Dear, oh dear, Pinza.
Of course it’s contrived when a horse like Rumh – who hadn’t stayed 12f when held up in his previous 2 races – is sent off to make all in his next at the distance; for the specific purpose of allowing his stablemate a better chance.
It’s hardly a

momentary decision

to supplement the horse to do the same thing in the 14.5f St Leger, either.

[Anonymous]

Of course it’s contrived when a horse like Rumh – who hadn’t stayed 12f when held up in his previous 2 races – is sent off to make all in his next at the distance; for the specific purpose of allowing his stablemate a better chance.
It’s hardly a

momentary decision

to supplement the horse to do the same thing in the 14.5f St Leger, either.

Aside from the detail that

he’s

a

she

, and completely bred for stamina by the way, the

momentary decision

is what happens when the starting gates open. We don’t know exactly what Godolphin are planning to do with

Rumh

until that moment – that’s one advantage of the tactic of declaring a pacemaker in advance.

The BHA rule addresses

what happens in running

, not what Godolphin or even

Reet Hard

may choose to say about it in advance. Say what you like, pacemaking (for a stablemate, and anything else who might benefit) is sanctioned by the BHA; so if you want to change the rule please address your smileys to them, not me.

[Gingertipster]

I disagree Pinza, I think rule 57.1.1 means a jockey on a pacemaker is not allowed to make any

manoeuvre

(including going off

deliberately too fast for its own good

) which "causes his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing".

As rule 57.2 says, "Nothing in Paragraph 57.1 prohibits pure pacemaking as such". ie Nothing wrong with pacemakers as long as the jockey keeps within the rules.

I was afraid the debate might become semantic! But for what it’s worth, I do not see that

manoeuvre

can possibly bear that construction. The (relevant) primary meanings from a dictionary definition would be:

1.

a contrived, complicated, and possibly deceptive plan or action

2.

a movement or action requiring dexterity and skill

For

1.

"Going off too fast" can’t be

contrived

(it is a momentary decision at or near the start),

complicated

(it’s simple) or

deceptive

(everyone expects a pacemaker to do just that.)

For

2:

"Going off too fast" is not a single

movement

, or a distinct

action

which needs

dexterity

and/or

skill

– any half-trained horseman could do it.

"Going off too fast" is therefore not within the limits of any possible construction borne by the word

manoeuvre

.

Pinza,
And you talk about "semantics".

You seem to have chosen a definition of

manoeuvre

to suit your arguement.

Wikipedia state:
QUOTE

"Maneuver, manoeuvre

(also spelled manœuvre or manoeuver from the French) may be a synonym for

strategy or tactic

. It is the

manipulation of a situation in order to gain some advantage"

. END QUOTE

How is "going off too fast"

not

a "strategy or tactic"?
How is it

not

a "manipulation of a situation in order to gain some advantage"?

Value Is Everything

[Eclipse First]

Simon Crisford interviewed on Sporting Life website;

Is Rumh in as a pacemaker? Absolutely!

That seems a fairly straightforward answer.

It also suggests that anyone backing Rumh needs their bumps felt, but I dont suppose it will stop some people, or the bookmakers offering an unrealistically short price about her.

[Gingertipster]

Simon Crisford interviewed on Sporting Life website;

Is Rumh in as a pacemaker? Absolutely!

That seems a fairly straightforward answer.

It also suggests that anyone backing Rumh needs their bumps felt, but I dont suppose it will stop some people, or the bookmakers offering an unrealistically short price about her.

EF,
There is nothing wrong with pacemakers as long as they try to win the race themselves. ie Don’t go off at a suicidal pace. Rumh in the Yorkshire Oaks did a great job of pacemaking, nothing wrong with it at all.

If a punter belives Rumh is value to make all at a good pace (not suicidal), then he/she should back her. Personally I wouldn’t take 1000/1.

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

Pinza,
And you talk about "semantics".

You seem to have chosen a definition of

manoeuvre

to suit your arguement.

I knew it was a mistake to get into semantics,

Ginger

! I chose the primary meanings (nos. 1 and 2 of eight) from OED, not its synonimic derivatives. But the main point is, that the BHA clause specifically allows pacemakers, provided they don’t interfere with other runners unfairly.

[Gingertipster]

Dear, oh dear, Pinza.
Of course it’s contrived when a horse like Rumh – who hadn’t stayed 12f when held up in his previous 2 races – is sent off to make all in his next at the distance; for the specific purpose of allowing his stablemate a better chance.
It’s hardly a

momentary decision

to supplement the horse to do the same thing in the 14.5f St Leger, either.

Rumh wasn’t exactly "held up" in the Irish Oaks. With only the other pacemakers from the Bolger and O’Brien yards in front of her early on. Four lengths or more back to the horse running in fourth, "front runner" Dancing Rain.

When Rumh tried 12 furlongs for the first time, held up in the Ribblesdale and ran poorly in 6th.

In her three previous starts she led from an early stage. Making all to win a maiden and listed Ballymacoll. Those two races split by a good third behind subsequent Oaks third and winner Izzi Top and Dancing Rain in the Nebury Trial where she led until around 1 out.

Rumh’s three best performances have all been when front running. Very disappointing when held up. So even if she might not stay, it is perfectly right for her to lead at 12f or even further. If she stays she stays.

Value Is Everything

[Gingertipster]

Pinza,
And you talk about "semantics".

You seem to have chosen a definition of

manoeuvre

to suit your arguement.

I knew it was a mistake to get into semantics,

Ginger

! I chose the primary meanings (nos. 1 and 2 of eight) from OED, not its synonimic derivatives. But the main point is, that the BHA clause specifically allows pacemakers, provided they don’t interfere with other runners unfairly.

I agree Pinza, it "allows pacemakers provided they don’t interfere with other runners unfairly". But also they need to try and win the race themselves. Pacemakers who deliberately go off too fast are not trying to win the race themselves.

Value Is Everything

[Anonymous]

I agree Pinza, it "allows pacemakers provided they don’t interfere with other runners unfairly". But also they need to try and win the race themselves. Pacemakers who deliberately go off too fast are not trying to win the race themselves.

We’re beginning to go round in circles now. I go back to my initial reason for quoting the BHA Rule: namely, that

"trying to win the race"

is

not mentioned

in this section on pacemakers. By definition, a pacemaker is trying to help win the race,

not for itself, but for another horse

– and unless things go spectacularly wrong, to our delight when it does! – that is exactly what happens.

[Author]

Posts