- This topic has 32 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
The following are more commonly cited in the academic literature as being correlated with injuries and have risk factors of a magnitude up to 50 times higher than faster turf ground:
The race in question being over jumps
The race in question being on dirt
Intensive training of the horse
Intensive racing of the horse
Drugs
Colder temperaturesIf the BHA put safety first why are they tinkering at the edges with turf going at the same time they are asking horses to race more often and putting on more races at colder times of day/year?
How can they defend jump racing’s existence when they claim that racing needs to completely alter its product to combat one injury per 10000 runs on the flat?
Nail on the head really. Just shows how nonsensical the argument for not racing on firm turf is.
..And three runner races for the supposed championship events. With all our top non-firm/hard ground horses racing abroad instead.
It’s a miracle that racing existed for centuries before watering.
Devil’s advocate here for a minute….
Even if you could convince the BHA that their stats and arguments were incorrect, you’d still need to convince the trainers. And that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Look at what happened at The Dante meeting a few years ago when they produced firmish ground….. scores of withdrawals.
For every Mark Johnson there’s a Richard Fahy.
I always think it’s unfair that we just don’t let nature decide what the going is.
..And three runner races for the supposed championship events. With all our top non-firm/hard ground horses racing abroad instead.
GT,
That’s your view but is there any historical data to back it up?
There’s nothing better than watching a top class racehorse quicken and lengthen on a genuinely fast surface. Unfortunately those occasions are becoming rarer these days due to the watering policy of many racecourses.
There was a 3 runner race at Leicester yesterday on heavy ground. Should we cancel as it wasn’t good ground? No we get on with it and soft ground horses get their opportunity.
Once racecourses work out how to turn soft/heavy ground back to good ground I’ll have a bit more sympathy for those connections that don’t want it firm for their horses.
With heavy ground few horses act on it so again there are many non-runners, however, heavy does not produce the increased danger/risk involved of hard/firm.
Yes, it is great to see a "top class racehorse quicken and lengthen on a genuinely fast surface" Oasis. But that turn of foot is still in evidence on good-firm. Viewing a race on "firm" it may seem the turn of foot is superior, but that may well be an illusion. Quickening away from rivals who are not acting on the ground will always look superior.
edinahib’s post suggested not watering at all, so not only would we have firm ground but hard too. Hard ground for top class races, how many do you think will turn up?
Very firm ground produces uncompetitive racing. Not only do soft ground horses not turn up, good ground horses don’t either; good ground horses that would run on good-firm.
I have seen race cards of "way back when", where very few horses turned up for big races at Royal Ascot on very firm ground. We are living in a different age. Back in the 60’s and 70’s when watering was less or non-existent firm/hard ground was more likely. Not many horses went overseas because travelling wasn’t so easy and fewer ran to form there. These days they run to form far more often and racing abroad is comman place. So connections unable to get conditions to suit in the UK are more likely to go abroad than they once did.
Value Is Everything..And three runner races for the supposed championship events. With all our top non-firm/hard ground horses racing abroad instead.
It’s a miracle that racing existed for centuries before watering.
What were the percentages of horse fatalities in the 1700’s and 1800’s Gladiateur?
Value Is EverythingThe following are more commonly cited in the academic literature as being correlated with injuries and have risk factors of a magnitude up to 50 times higher than faster turf ground:
The race in question being over jumps
The race in question being on dirt
Intensive training of the horse
Intensive racing of the horse
Drugs
Colder temperaturesIf the BHA put safety first why are they tinkering at the edges with turf going at the same time they are asking horses to race more often and putting on more races at colder times of day/year?
How can they defend jump racing’s existence when they claim that racing needs to completely alter its product to combat one injury per 10000 runs on the flat?
Nail on the head really. Just shows how nonsensical the argument for not racing on firm turf is.
Why should we not try and make flat racing as safe as possible without reducing the spectacle? The same as we should try and make jump racing as safe as possible without reducing the spectacle.
Is there any point in making cars safer on our roads when motorbikes are more dangerous?
Value Is EverythingWhat were the percentages of horse fatalities in the 1700’s and 1800’s Gladiateur?
Nobody can answer that question as reliable data is not available; surely someone with your supposed statistical knowledge should know that.
What were the percentages of horse fatalities in the 1700’s and 1800’s Gladiateur?
Nobody can answer that question as reliable data is not available; surely someone with your supposed statistical knowledge should know that.
Exactly my point Gladiateur.
You bring past racing centuries in to the debate by saying"It’s a miracle that racing existed for centuries before watering"
, without knowing how many horses were injured or died in those centuries.
Safety
is the whole point of watering.
Public perception of safety towards animals has changed. It would not have mattered to people in the 18th and 19th centuries had there been 5 or more times racehorse fatalities than today.
Value Is Everything..And three runner races for the supposed championship events. With all our top non-firm/hard ground horses racing abroad instead.
It’s a miracle that racing existed for centuries before watering.
Exactly my thoughts. I can understand trainers taking out horses when the going is brick hard but unless,as Richard Hughes says, we have horses running on good to firm going then gradually we will be left with horses who only go on good or good to soft going. As for stats just from the last few years it seems to me that far more horses are pulled out due to heavy going than firm. You only have to look at the huge number of withdrawals at the guineas meeting in Ireland and the Irish derby meeting when Camelot obviously hated the ground.
I’m no breeding expert but know enough about it to realise that Hughes is talking a lot of sense and coming from a family steeped in racing is making very valid points. The trend for good going know will obviously affect stallions as the likes of war front progeny are much better on good to firm and stallions whose progeny like good or good to soft are likely to be used much more which would be a shame. The international at York last year was one of the races of the season and as declaration of war showed at the breeders cup he was a top class colt on good to firm going. There is no right answer but all the likes of Hughes is saying is that we are damaging the breed and the racecourses so be wary when it comes to watering too much. Simples...And three runner races for the supposed championship events. With all our top non-firm/hard ground horses racing abroad instead.
It’s a miracle that racing existed for centuries before watering.
Exactly my thoughts. I can understand trainers taking out horses when the going is brick hard but unless,as Richard Hughes says, we have horses running on good to firm going then gradually we will be left with horses who only go on good or good to soft going.
edinahib,
If people were watering to produce good or good-soft you’d be right to be concerned. But they’re not. They only water to try and produce good-firm
.
Good-
firm
(in an ordinary summer) is the norm.
Value Is EverythingGingertipster,
You seem to be obsessed with connecting firm ground to death and injury.
Fields would be produced to 4 or 5 runners you say because trainers would be unwilling to risk injuring their horses, a bit like the Brigadier Gerard tomorrow? Has it a small field because trainers are worried about injuring their horses?
Some horses prefer soft and some firm but fast ground horses just don’t get a fair crack of the whip unlike soft ground horses.
Nothing wrong with firm ground if the ground is level and has good grass cover.
As for those BHA stats I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, look how they manipulated the truth and peddled deceit when they tried to force through them farcical whip rules 2 or 3 years ago.
GT,
Suggest you re-read my post (and others on this thread) as I am not advocating firm ground and neither are various other posters.
As Richard Hughes states in his article the BHA Racing Inpsectorate directive is for Racecourses to produce good to firm ground for flat racing with
some
leniency when the course is racing for multiple days (e.g. Royal Ascot).
That’s the aim but the racecourses are all too often failing to meet that objctive. In a normal summer why do courses like Goodwood, Ripon and Newbury sometimes overwater to provide good to firm (good in places) ground when they have one day meetings?
Safety is not the whole point of watering. It’s part of the equation I will give you that. There’s a drive towards good ground as that tempts in the soft ground horses that wouldn’t race on a firmer surface.
More runners >> Bigger fields >> Increased bookmaker revenue >> Higher levy.
A win win for the bookmakers and the BHA.
Gingertipster,
You seem to be obsessed with connecting firm ground to death and injury.
Fields would be produced to 4 or 5 runners you say because trainers would be unwilling to risk injuring their horses, a bit like the Brigadier Gerard tomorrow? Has it a small field because trainers are worried about injuring their horses?
Some horses prefer soft and some firm but fast ground horses just don’t get a fair crack of the whip unlike soft ground horses.
Nothing wrong with firm ground if the ground is level and has good grass cover.
As for those BHA stats I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, look how they manipulated the truth and peddled deceit when they tried to force through them farcical whip rules 2 or 3 years ago.
"Firm/hard" ground has an
increased risk
Eddie.
Firm ground horses do get a fair crack of the whip in normal years, because good-firm is the Summer default setting in flat racing. Good-firm is also what courses aim for with watering. "Firm ground" horses act on good-
firm
.
Is there
"Nothing wrong with firm ground if the ground is level and has good grass cover"
? Do you know that for a fact? Think of the weight of a fully grown rangy racehorse with its fragile legs on a very firm surface running at full pelt on sometimes undulating ground. How much do a few more blades of/millimetres of grass make? Yes, it makes a slight difference, but personally I’d rather my horse run with at least some give in the soil beneath that grass.
Value Is EverythingGT,
Suggest you re-read my post (and others on this thread) as I am not advocating firm ground and neither are various other posters.
As Richard Hughes states in his article the BHA Racing Inpsectorate directive is for Racecourses to produce good to firm ground for flat racing with
some
leniency when the course is racing for multiple days (e.g. Royal Ascot).
That’s the aim but the racecourses are all too often failing to meet that objctive. In a normal summer why do courses like Goodwood, Ripon and Newbury sometimes overwater to provide good to firm (good in places) ground when they have one day meetings?
Safety is not the whole point of watering. It’s part of the equation I will give you that. There’s a drive towards good ground as that tempts in the soft ground horses that wouldn’t race on a firmer surface.
More runners >> Bigger fields >> Increased bookmaker revenue >> Higher levy.
A win win for the bookmakers and the BHA.
Then we agree, courses should (and do)
try
and produce good-firm ground Oasis.
You ask
"why do courses overwater to provide good-firm (good in places"?
The aim is to "try", but it must be a difficult business getting it right with our climate. There are bound to be times when there’s been an honest mistake or unexpected rain or more likely… They’ve had to water to ensure a "safe/r" surface (ie not firm) just in case they don’t get the rain that has only a 10% chance of reaching the course. Watering and then it does rain, resulting in ground softer than good-firm.I’d go further than you Oasis; am sure looking at race times the ground is sometimes genuinely "good" after watering, but with the BHA directive – courses do not want to own up to "overwatering". It’s usually seen as the course’s fault (as this thread shows) where as genuinely "good" is often just due to circumstances beyond their control (see my example above).
There are also imo occasions when (judged by times) it is genuinely firm ground, but again only officially good-firm.
I really don’t see any conspiracy by BHA and courses to produce Good ground for more runners, it must be a difficult job in our climate to produce exactly good-firm every time.
Value Is Everythingit must be a difficult job in our climate to produce exactly good-firm every time.
For all those who do want courses to
try
and produce "firm" ground, there will be times when despite the valient attempts of the racecourse staff – the ground will be genuinely firmer than firm. With racehorses running on sometimes partly
hard
ground.
Value Is EverythingGT,
I agree the British weather can often make it difficult for courses to judge how much water to apply. However there are plenty occasions when course’s have had a dry week and they still end up with good ground (as described or timed or both). Surely a competent clerk of the course can deliver good to firm ground in mid summer?
As I mentioned part of the aim of the watering policy is to increase field sizes in order to increase turnover. The bigger the fields the more likelihood you will get a higher attendance and increased turnover (gate receipts, food and drink, betting). That’s business but it’s of no benefit to those horses that prefer genuine top of the ground.
As Richard Hughes states in his article the current watering policy has several other consequences as well. I’m not saying he is 100% correct with his assumptions but it’s a good article nonetheless.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.