- This topic has 97 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Yeah you have a point, a very poor turnout. But many punters having a day out at Chester probably didn’t realise Frozen Fire was a headcase and thought "wow, Derby winner, surely he’ll win this group3". And Murtagh got blamed, and so did O’Brien for the lack of a pacemaker. I guess there are positives and negatives for the running of pacemakers.
The whole area needs a huge review. How the rules allow a horse to be rode like Rockhampton was in the King George last year, I don’t know. The way certain pacemakers are rode they are just non-triers.
I don’t like what pacemakers do to races.
I like pacemakers and I’d rather have a race with them than without them. At least you know you are going to get some sort of gallop and because of that the best horse in the race on the day usually wins.
I think it is just an assumption, like in Big Buck’s assuming Buzzword was a pacemaker.
No assumption, he was
But no-one told the horse, who could barely put one paw in front of the other out the back 
I’ve no problem with genuine pacemakers, provided they don’t interfere with the other runners as they are being passed (eg moving off the rail to allow their stable companion through while ensuring all other runners have to go around them)
And as regards tactics, remember the race in Ireland (Derby?) where O’Brien ran 2 pacemakers to force Godolphin’s pacemakers to go off too fast in the hope of having a slowly run race which suited his fancied runner. A mini-tactical race in the midst of the main one.
- Total Posts 17716
Are you sure you’re not thinking of the 07 Eclipse DB, where the AOB horses harassed Authorized’s pacemaker into going off too fast?
Fwiw, I believe pacemakers shouldn’t be allowed at all, if a horse needs a pacemaker then that horse itself is not running on its own merit, let alone its pacemaker(s), which is/should be against the rules of racing.
They’re certainly not allowed in some jurisdictions.Regarding pacemakers – I’d much rather see them used and overlooked (by the stewards from a rules perspective) than have falsely run races with ‘odd’ results. Although I do accept that pacemakers can produce the occasional ‘odd’ result themselves.
I have nothing against pacemakers as long as they are trying to win the race themselves. At First Sight did that, going the pace of a truly run Group 1 over Epsom’s 1m4f.
However, all to often they go off at suicidal speed (e.g. 1m2f pace at 1m4f), there is no way they can keep that up. Also, if missing the break, they go sprinting pace to get to the front. Massively against their own chance of winning. Therefore, they are not TRYING TO WIN, and this is against existing rules of racing. Those responsible, jockeys, trainers and owners should face stewards enquires for "non-triers". If there’s a horse quoted in the betting, even a 100/1 or 500/1 shot should be doing it’s best to win.
Value Is EverythingDespite what must have been a disappointing day for Ballydoyle the performance of At First Sight might have some long term benefits for them in future races.
It will be harder to ignore their pacemakers in upcoming races.I’m not sure where I stand on the idea of pacemakers. I think I would prefer it if a horse could be made ‘official pacemaker’ with an agreement that they will pull up before the last furlong or two.
I think in this instance, I just think it’s all very strange. What does the performance of At First Sight say about those behind him? It would certainly put me off backing any of them.
I find the use of pacemakers confusing sometimes.
I can understand using a pacemaker to set the pace for a stable mate that needs a good pace. It’s the same reason they were used in human athletics (esp in middle distance running in the 70’s and 80’s), because it’s pyschologically easier to follow a pace than make the pace. This is the same reason domestiques are used to drag the team leader up the mountain in the Tour de France (it certainly isn’t for drafting when they are going that slow… it’s mentally easier to follow than lead).
So to that end, the way the Ballydoyle pacemaker was used in the Coronation on Friday made perfect sense, and F&G slotted right in behind him.What I don’t understand is when the pacemaker (or multiples) goes off like a bat out of hell and everyone, including his stable mate, completely ignores him, knowing full well he’s going to blow up and come to a stop with 3f to go.
Now, At First Sight was a little different in that he found himself in a position to almost win. But then, I don’t think he was entered to be 100% out and out pacemaker, and was entered to some degree on his merits… same with last year and Golden Sword.But those pacemakers that go off at a spastic pace…. I mean, what purpose does it serve? Like those two Ballydoyle horses in the Arc last year…. what was the point in that? I could see if they were being used like a "rabbit" in the American sense, where you are trying to draw out a hard to rate horse and force them into a speed duel, but that’s almost never an issue in Europe as trainers actually train their horse to settle (which brings up another point.. why do American trainers have such a hard time getting speedballs to settle?).
Regarding pacemakers – I’d much rather see them used and overlooked (by the stewards from a rules perspective) than have falsely run races with ‘odd’ results. Although I do accept that pacemakers can produce the occasional ‘odd’ result themselves.
I have nothing against pacemakers as long as they are trying to win the race themselves. At First Sight did that, going the pace of a truly run Group 1 over Epsom’s 1m4f.
However, all to often they go off at suicidal speed (e.g. 1m2f pace at 1m4f), there is no way they can keep that up. Also, if missing the break, they go sprinting pace to get to the front. Massively against their own chance of winning. Therefore, they are not TRYING TO WIN, and this is against existing rules of racing. Those responsible, jockeys, trainers and owners should face stewards enquires for "non-triers". If there’s a horse quoted in the betting, even a 100/1 or 500/1 shot should be doing it’s best to win.
The rules are to run on merits and obtain best possible placing. A 6f horse in the Derby wins the first 6f portion on merit and finishes the race last – its best possible placing over 12f. There is nothing specifically in the rules about trying to win.
reet – yes it must have been the ’07 Eclipse
In relation to pacemakers not running on their merits, it could easily be argued that the only way a horse like At First Sight or Golden Sword could win a Derby or similar top class race)
is
to set off in front like a bat-out-of-hell and try to slip the field.
I think the subject of pacemakers is similar to many others in that there isnt a definitive answer as to whether its right or wrong as there are so many case studies you could look at!
For me, the races i get most frustrated at (frequently in ireland) are the occasions when the whole pack allow one horse to get an absolutely massive lead and the jockeys wait until the last moment till they make a move (basically mis-timing). Its farcical when you see a horse that can barely walk coming to the line with four or five others full of running in behind.
from Alan Aitken, SCMP:
============================
Chief steward Kim Kelly says the Jockey Club will not consider the issue of pacemakers in the wake of Sunday’s Mercedes-Benz Hong Kong Derby, calling their use in other jurisdictions "as a blight on racing".
Kelly was responding to comments by champion trainer John Moore regarding the farcically slow pace, which ruined the chances of many fancied runners and several returned from the race with injuries after being galloped on by horses racing behind them.
….
The use of pacemakers to ensure a proper tempo for a better-fancied stablemate in races like the Derby is a legitimate tactic in Europe.
The tactic usually involves announcing pre-race that a lesser light from the same yard as one of the favourites will be used to ensure the early speed is solid, then virtually retire from the race as his trainer’s more serious chances overtake him, although they have been known in some cases to keep going and win. Kelly quickly dismissed the idea the Jockey Club should even investigate the idea.
"Our rules don’t allow for pacemakers – we expect all runners in any race to employ tactics with the intention of winning or obtaining the best possible place in the field and that isn’t going to change," Kelly said.
"And, if you are asking me for a personal opinion, the use of pacemakers in other jurisdictions is a blight on racing. Once you cross the line into allowing a horse to be ridden as a pacemaker for a better-fancied stablemate, you are allowing that horse to be run in a manner which may not be in its own best interests, and then I think you cross into very dangerous territory."
…..
"The stewards have no problem with horses being front runners, if that is their style, and setting a good speed. But we would have a problem with a natural front runner that goes too fast in the lead to assist another runner, then puts up a white flag without ever being given his chance," Kelly said.
"I’d like someone to explain to me why the horse who settles back in the field is entitled to the right tempo to suit him but the horse that races forward isn’t? Tactics are an important part of racing and we want to see every horse ridden to his own best advantage.
====================
<!– m –>http://racing.scmp.com/freeservice/news … 20321c.asp<!– m –>
Those people in HK have mis-interpreted the European rules. Trouble is our stewards also mis-interpret the rules.
As I understand it:
Pacemakershave to
try and win the race
themselves
. Even if that means beating the first string. Any pacemaker
intentionally
going too fast to last home
is
breaking our rules.
Our stewards should be more vigelent, treating pacemakers going off at a suicidal pace as
non-triers
.
In practice it is impossible to ban "pacemakers" anyway. When does a "front runner" (who’s stable-mate is held up) become a "pacemaker"?
Was Slip Anchor acting as pacemaker to stable-mate Llanfranco in the 1985 Derby?
Value Is EverythingThe use of pacemakers seems a bugbear to some overseas traniers and racing fans.
I am all for the use of pacemakers – especially when I have backed a well fancied horse which relies on a good fast pace from the outset.
One thing’s for sure; Aidan O’Brien will continue to use pacemakers, no matter who objects to them.
Ginge: Slip Anchor was the more fancied Cecil runner that day; in fact, he was the favourite, and as you probably know … " made all, easily !"
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Ginge: Slip Anchor was the more fancied Cecil runner that day; in fact, he was the favourite, and as you probably know … " made all, easily !"
Exactly H,
With 16/1 antepost, I know he was favourite.
Had Slip Anchor been a "pacemaker", you might expect him to be 10 lengths clear rounding Tattenham Corner. Yet this non-pacemaker was 10 lengths clear.When the only difference between a front runner and a pacemaker is its price; is it fair to ban pacemakers?
Value Is Everything
But no-one told the horse, who could barely put one paw in front of the other out the back 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.