- This topic has 20 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
I vaguely recall a thread about safety limits but don’t remember the revelations from a journalist of which you speak.
Anyway – shouldn’t you be opening as many Totesport accounts as you can rather than arguing on here about 16+ runner hcaps? Judging by today’s RP, they seem determined to lose as much money as they possibly can to your ilk….
People on this thread are saying they’re not lieing, fair enough as nobody was accusing them of that anyway.
If there was an accusation it was that they were not posting in good faith. For example, when Paul infers the BHA/BHB/HRA (henceforth BHA) have not sought to to reduce the number of 16 runner handicaps because the research they’ve done indicates 16 runner plus races yield at least as much levy, he is not lieing. I do not dispute his (inappropriate) statistics. What I do question is whether he is posting in good faith. Nobody seriously believes that, ceteris parabus, 16 runner handicaps yield as much levy as 15 runner ones, so why is he trying to infer it?
He also claims that field size limits are set by racecourses themselves and not the BHA. Correct, but isn’t this semantics when the characters in question are one and the same? Take the article below for example. We learn of:
a) the BHA having lengthy discussions with Plumpton over the issue. The racecourse might have made the decision but the BHA were certainly involved in the process.
b) the same unconvincing reasoning that fortuitously sees 16 runner handicaps being axed. Plumpton has managed fine for 120 years. Are we really expected to believe that, in a period of global warming, there are roughly half a dozen too many runners at Plumpton each year?
c) we learn of the modernisation of racing document , which eminated from the BHB seeking to get rid of 16 runner handicaps, and the furore that it caused, leading to what appears to be the decision to bring it in via the back door. Who authored this document? Why, it was one Peter Savill, then Chairman of the BHB and by the strangest of coincidences Chairman of Plumpton.Maybe Paul would like to comment on what input the BHA had into this and similar decisions, such as Kempton’s, that coincidentally have exactly the same outcome as the modernisation of British Racing document outlined.
Plumpton to cut maximum field size to 14
Published: 30/12/2005 (Sport) Paul Binfield
PLUMPTON is to reduce its field size to a maximum of 14 runners with effect from its fixture on January 16 and insists the move will increase, not decrease, betting turnover, writes Paul Binfield. The decision, which excludes Sunday’s Sky Bet Sussex National which will maintain its current maximum of 17, is designed to lessen on-course traffic.
The course believes that the limited width of the track hinders its ability to provide fresh ground for each meeting and its winter season allows very little natural recovery.
Plumpton’s decision echoes the postponement in May, though not abandonment, of a controversial BHB plan to limit field sizes to 14 in Flat races except heritage handicaps from 2006.
P atrick Davis, Plumpton’s chief executive, said: “This is not a safety issue – it is a track-saving issue and we want the best possible racing surface.
“I appreciate that we operate in a fixed-odds-driven country where 16 runners in a handicap means each-way betting with four places.
“In reality, Plumpton is not going to get 16 runners except in the odd race and most of them are novice events and non-handicaps.
“With the optimum field size, from a betting point of view, having been shown to be 12 to 14 in other major racing countries like Hong Kong, Japan and the USA, we believe that our decision will enhance rather than inhibit betting turnover.”
R uth Quinn, the BHB’s racing director, said: “The BHB has had lengthy discussions with Plumpton and we appreciate why they want to go ahead with this initiative. We are particularly responsive to their wish to improve the racing surface.”
Skybet were not influential in the decision to keep their race to a maximum of 17. Dale Tempest, the company’s public relations manager, said: “We haven’t discussed any track-saving issues with Plumpton and generally we leave such matters to the course and as a sponsor don’t get involved.”
Channel 4 pundit John McCririck said: “The ruling bodies want punters to lose and the bookmakers to win with an objective of getting bigger prizemoney. Punters like four places and the bookmakers want to do away with it.”The answer from Paul regarding 16 runner handicaps beggars belief.
Handicap, heritage handicap, safe, not safe .. lol !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.