- This topic has 172 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
If horse racing is a business, then it has to be able to survive in the market place. If it cannot adapt to the changing demands of the market place it does not deserve to survive.
The whip issue merely demonstrates the desperate state racing has been manoeuvred into by its own in-fighting and inability to get a fair price for the product it offers.
- Total Posts 17716
I didn’t think the 3.10 was a ‘schooling session’; a comfortable victory for an odds-on chance with a stone in hand of his nearest rival.
You’re making the mistake of only watching the winner. I can’t speak for Paul O., but this came across as a "schooling session" for me, not because the winner won easily, but because (in my opinion) the rider of the second horse made little attempt to make any sort of race of it.
We well understand why, I think, with the Paddy Power meeting in the firing line if Walsh had got banned again yesterday. It takes two horses to make a race, you know. As it was, both had nice, easy pipe openers in public to get them fit for the future.
Walsh’s body language suggested: "Somersby’s got a stone in hand and is jumping better than mine. Better accept the inevitable sooner rather than later, given these daft new rules".
Coming to the third horse home…. as
Ricky
has said, with all these "coasters" on show (on good ground too) we could organise a great tea party at the Ritz.
- Total Posts 17716
If horse racing is a business, then it has to be able to survive in the market place. If it cannot adapt to the changing demands of the market place it does not deserve to survive.
You put it well
EF
, in so far as racing is a business. The problem is that the current attempt to foist a visual "culture change" onto it goes slap bang against marketplace realities, as well as sporting ones.
As has been said so often (and ignored so pointedly) racing is an international sport. If worldwide audiences don’t see what they want in our racing, they will invest their money in Hong Kong, Japan, France, Ireland and America. That’s why it’s in our interest to move to harmonised rules, rather than (as we have done) putting ourselves way out on a puritan limb.
The whip is a side issue, UK racing’s inability to create a sound financial structure will lead to it becoming a second rate product in terms of horses, jockeys, trainers and administrators. This will not happen overnight but it is sadly inevitable.
The BHA should be commended for at least trying to re-vamp the product in order to maintain the position of UK racing. If it fails so be it, but to simply let the status quo result in the inexorable slide into obscurity is far worse than trying to alter the marketplace. The complete lack of support the government has demonstrated for racing over securing a workable Levy shows just how much it really cares.In the meantime the "unintended consequences" of this include impacts on the " integrity of the race " ,competitiveness, and as Pinza has again highlighted the welfare of the horse or worse again the welfare of the jockeys.
Evidence please?
Point taken. I should have included the word potential before "unintended consequences". Time will tell . At this point the main " evidence" is probably Andrew Glassonbury’s comments on boycies blog http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/1 … ow-so-far/
For me that would have been enough to go back to the old rules pending a consideration of the issues raised.Jockey welfare should be paramount.
However given that we are where we are then I think a way forward might involve:
1.Putting in place a measure of success for compliance.
To do this I would think that breaches under the old rules should be split into those attributable to frequency and those attributable to technique ( I accept there will be some overlap.) This becomes the benchmark against which behavioural change is measured. The BHA can demonstrate the achievement of change by monitoring the number of instances in which the old rules would have been breached ( in each category). This can be supported by :
2. An escalating punishment scale for frequency breaches between the new limit and old limit.
The details can be worked out – but a ride that is 1 or 2 over is still well within the old limits – compliance with which is the measure of success. There is no need for draconian penalties at this level. I do think some discretion is needed in the count – eg the Paul McMahon incident was a failure of technique rather than frequency imo.
3. Publish compliance stats ( % and absolute numbers) for Jockeys/ Trainers and Owners and identify severity of breaches. This should include the 2010/11 season comparative.
This will illustrate that the vast majority are compliant. For those that get exposed so be it. Repeat offenders do need to be dealt with – Animal Aid Table B is shameful.Thanks to
SeanBoyce
and
Yeats
for explaining what seemed a curious incident with Crowley. Another ban, then, which can on the face of it be put down to the jockey’s fear of exceeding the stroke quota. I wonder if it would be possible to ask Jim Crowley what happened from his point of view?
I thought he would have been an ideal topical interview for Get On today Pinza especially with the Racing Post (Colin Russell) totally overlooking the incident in todays RP but alas not.
Surely there has to be an onus on Racing correspondents to be getting more involved in this issue and the farce that is occurring daily in the sport. The BHA are being let off the hook very lightly by them.
An email sent to RUK last week described the BHA as incompetent yet Lydia completely disputed that. Seems a very accurate description to me.
Pinza, small field novice chases are often little more than schooling sessions, we have had a multitude of debates on here about their uncompetitive nature and poor suitability as betting fodder for that very reason.
The fact that yesterday’s race was a mere pipe opener for the 2 principals is nothing to do with the new whip rules it has always been thus.
As for the 3rd place plodder, I would prefer to see a horse that’s out of it’s depth be allowed to complete in its own time rather have the jockey use his allowed number of strokes so that it is beaten by 91 lengths rather than 94.Corm, perhaps we could have a Whip Ban section of the forum so people could keep going round and round the same circles ad infinitum?
I didn’t think the 3.10 was a ‘schooling session’; a comfortable victory for an odds-on chance with a stone in hand of his nearest rival.
You’re making the mistake of only watching the winner. I can’t speak for Paul O., but this came across as a "schooling session" for me, not because the winner won easily, but because (in my opinion) the rider of the second horse made little attempt to make any sort of race of it.
We well understand why, I think, with the Paddy Power meeting in the firing line if Walsh had got banned again yesterday. It takes two horses to make a race, you know. As it was, both had nice, easy pipe openers in public to get them fit for the future.
Walsh’s body language suggested: "Somersby’s got a stone in hand and is jumping better than mine. Better accept the inevitable sooner rather than later, given these daft new rules".
Coming to the third horse home…. as
Ricky
has said, with all these "coasters" on show (on good ground too) we could organise a great tea party at the Ritz.
I too am of the opinion the 3:10 looked a schooling session for the second and third.
Although it could be argued the third had no chance of beating the other two if they ran anywhere near form.
Therefore its best chance was to either go off in the lead, and hope the others concentrate too much on their own battle. So allow too much rope. Or…
To allow the two principles to go off in front and hope they cut each other’s throats. Eventually picking up the pieces to win. This may have been the jockey’s idea so is somewhat excusable.In the case of 1833 Pinza, it had absolutely nothing to do with Walsh and the new whip rules. Everything to do with giving the horse as easy an introduction as possible for his next race. Anti-post favourite both before Mondays race and afterwards for the Hennessey.
Walsh would almost certainly have got beaten anyway, whatever he’d done in the closing stages. But "almost" is not good enough. "Excepting" his fate so weakly once Somersby came upsides was not what we expect from this great jockey. Early on the run-in his arms looked particularly ineffective. It just seemed as though Walsh was at pains to give the horse as "kind" a reappearance as possible and this race did not matter to him/connections.
I wonder what toys would’ve been chucked out of his pram had the stewards taken any action?
Value Is EverythingPinza, small field
novice
chases are often little more than schooling sessions, we have had a multitude of debates on here about their uncompetitive nature and poor suitability as betting fodder for that very reason.
Are you talking about the same race ST?
This was no Novive Chase.
Value Is EverythingSorry, "Beginners Chase" I’ve just come out of my Summer torpor in time for the jumps season and see everyone’s gone berzerk. Roll on Saturday I say!
Agreed Ginger. Furthest thing from Ruby’s mind would be the whip rules.
No one should complain about that ride.
You could say he could have tried to force errors by really setting about his own mount to apply more pressure but that’s a call best left to the man on board.
The way they were going It looked more likely Ruby was the one who would have ended up on the floor.
To be honest no matter whether he needed that or not he wouldn’t beat Somersby his superiority was more than the runner up being a few gallops short IMO.
Nice horse but I smell PN Hype.
I didn’t think the 3.10 was a ‘schooling session’; a comfortable victory for an odds-on chance with a stone in hand of his nearest rival.
You’re making the mistake of only watching the winner. I can’t speak for Paul O., but this came across as a "schooling session" for me, not because the winner won easily, but because (in my opinion) the rider of the second horse made little attempt to make any sort of race of it.
We well understand why, I think, with the Paddy Power meeting in the firing line if Walsh had got banned again yesterday. It takes two horses to make a race, you know. As it was, both had nice, easy pipe openers in public to get them fit for the future.
Walsh’s body language suggested: "Somersby’s got a stone in hand and is jumping better than mine. Better accept the inevitable sooner rather than later, given these daft new rules".
Coming to the third horse home…. as
Ricky
has said, with all these "coasters" on show (on good ground too) we could organise a great tea party at the Ritz.
My,my, you’re a miracle worker right enough. When I was watching the Kempton race, I was only watching the winner. Even I didn’t realise that, how did you know?!!!
You also worked miracles in Ruby’s head when you decided on his behalf that the winner was jumping better than his mount when he didn’t see the winner jump till three out.
Also, if you think Ruby wasn’t trying, you cannot read races and ought to make your way directly to the Betfair forum. Don’t pass go.
I happily stand by my comments that yesterday’s 15:10 at Kempton was no more than a schooling session, it gives me no pleasure in saying I wrote beforehand:-
Unbelievably only three runners and one of them, Gee Dee Nen, did mot make it to the parade ring or if he did he was very, very late. Something of a pointless race to be honest but there you go.These Graduation Chases are staged for the benefit of trainers so they can get a run into their horses. Nothing against that in principle but I would rather see them staged at the end of a card and for much lower prize money.
Watching the "race" was like watching a schooling session, with neither of the front two being competitive.
Gee Dee Nen made no attempt to compete with the other two, finishing 94 lengths behind the front two, indeed he didn’t even bother parading in the parade ring beforehand.
That was Somersby’s first "win" in two years and will probably be his last.
I should also add I do not think it would have been any different regardless of which whip rules would have been in force,
- Total Posts 17716
My,my, you’re a miracle worker right enough. When I was watching the Kempton race, I was only watching the winner. Even I didn’t realise that, how did you know?!!
Steeplechasing
, I can only go on what you write. There’s plenty of that to be sure; but in this instance you only wrote about the winner and how he ran, and did not so much as
mention
the ride given to the runner up. I may be a miracle worker, but I am not a mind reader. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on it.
I note that even
Ginger
is with me on this one, as far as giving Master Walsh a
"C-"
for effort (though we may disagree as to the reasons he made so little). You are of course entitled to your opinion, but there’s no need to be so snippy in expressing it. What happened to that serene content of yesterday?
I happily stand by my comments that yesterday’s 15:10 at Kempton was no more than a schooling session, it gives me no pleasure in saying I wrote beforehand:-
Unbelievably only three runners and one of them, Gee Dee Nen, did mot make it to the parade ring or if he did he was very, very late. Something of a pointless race to be honest but there you go.These Graduation Chases are staged for the benefit of trainers so they can get a run into their horses. Nothing against that in principle but I would rather see them staged at the end of a card and for much lower prize money.
Watching the "race" was like watching a schooling session, with neither of the front two being competitive.
Gee Dee Nen made no attempt to compete with the other two, finishing 94 lengths behind the front two, indeed he didn’t even bother parading in the parade ring beforehand.
That was Somersby’s first "win" in two years and will probably be his last.
What do you think of my comment Paul? That Gee Dee Nen had so little chance on the book, 43 lbs behind Somersby on Timeform ratings. That his jockey may have thought his best prospect of a win was to hold him up out the back. Just hoping the other two go off too fast for their own good and then pick up the pieces. Highly unlikely I know, but more likely than winning the race if given the same type of ride as the two principles.
I agree, it did look a schooling session, particularly for 1833. But you’re being a bit unfair on Somersby. Although there are "quirks" and isn’t the most consistent; he’s been highly tried and ran very well over what is possibly an inadequate trip for him these days. Even with two miles being a bit short and not winning, Somersby was rated the 5th best chaser in Britain last season.
Value Is EverythingWhat do you think of my comment Paul? That Gee Dee Nen had so little chance on the book, 43 lbs behind Somersby on Timeform ratings. That his jockey may have thought his best prospect of a win was to hold him up out the back. Just hoping the other two go off too fast for their own good and then pick up the pieces.
My thoughts were slightly less charitable than yours but similar – my thought was he was hoping the first two would take each other on forcing one or both to fall.
However there is holding out the back and there is racing a fence behind
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
I’d suggest Gee Dee Nen was there to pick up 2 grand for hunting round at the rear.
Mission accomplished for all 3 horses and not a hair turned – though God help any jockey who had said so beforehand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.