- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The handicapper repeatedly allots his horses marks that are stones below a mark that would give them an equal chance.
The stewards never seem to ask why his horses are beaten miles in maidens that subsequent events suggest they probably had the ability to win.
At Southwell last year one of his horses took another out and the result stood.
Today the stewards do notice a minor incident furlongs from home and his horse gets promoted to first.
Do I detect some favouritism?
Sir Mark is to flat racing as Nicky Henderson is to the jump scene. Like them or loathe them they are both masters of their profession. However, some might argue they are more akin to masters of illusion and deception.
Ken
His horse today got the race because the rules of racing were infringed. Johnston horse (with Fairly having whip in wrong hand) came across forcing Cosgrave to stop riding for a stride or two and needed swithching. Then came back to be beaten a very small distance (nose or sht hd). Yes, it was a minor incident but the margin of victory was minimal too. So had no inteference taken place, Prescott’s horse would probably have won. Right decision imo, I had no bet in the race.
Prescott knows what he’s doing with handicappers. Just because he runs horses at the wrong trip (pedigree wise) does not mean they aren’t trying to win those races. Then when they run at the "correct trip" they are very likely to improve and win. There is nothing wrong with that. No favouritism, just a great trainer.
Value Is EverythingJust because he runs horses at the wrong trip (pedigree wise) does not mean they aren’t trying to win those races.
Nor does it mean that explanations shouldn’t be sought when these horses perform attrociously or that the stewards should assume that minor trip preferences
wholly explain
the poor performances in lieu of asking for a proper explanation.
What is a credible perfomance for, say, a 90 horse over 10 furlongs when it runs over 7 furlongs in a maiden? Surely not some of the displays that the stewards seem to systematically ignore.
Braveheart Move’s maiden win was classic. ‘Sorry guvnor, but they just went too quick up front.’
His horse today got the race because the rules of racing were infringed. Johnston horse (with Fairly having whip in wrong hand) came across forcing Cosgrave to stop riding for a stride or two and needed swithching. Then came back to be beaten a very small distance (nose or sht hd). Yes, it was a minor incident but the margin of victory was minimal too. So had no inteference taken place, Prescott’s horse would probably have won. Right decision imo, I had no bet in the race.
I don’t agree with that, of course as far as the result is concerned it’s irrelevant which hand Fairley had his whip in. I don’t believe you could say there was any interference that affected the result, the first past the post was going like the winner at the time of the "interference" and there was still room up the rails for the second to go through if good enough. He didn’t "need" to switch, he chose to and there was far too much doubt imo to reverse and the benefit of doubt should have gone to the first past the post as per the rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.