Home › Forums › Big Races – Discussion › Pierse Hurdle 2009
- This topic has 50 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by carvillshill.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 11, 2009 at 17:03 #203197
What about Dancing Tornado at 14/1. Track and conditions to suit, consistent and genuine , stamina for a fast run 2m, in form, improved for the first time cheekpieces last time and carries less than the threshold 11 stone for this race.
January 11, 2009 at 17:20 #203201AnonymousInactive- Total Posts 17716
Alpine Eagle (12/1) and Wanango (20/1) for me.
January 11, 2009 at 20:10 #203240Well done JJ 3rd at 20/1 better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick
January 11, 2009 at 21:04 #203258AnonymousInactive- Total Posts 17716
Btn a head by a boil-over – such is life?
January 11, 2009 at 22:35 #203288Very unlucky mate his trainer must be sick as a parrot beaten by a no hoper at Cheltenham and again here.
The joys of handicaps
January 12, 2009 at 19:48 #203462Fitrst time i’ve saw the Pierse hurdle. Much a do about nothing really. What was the ‘controversy’ with regards to weight ?
January 12, 2009 at 21:49 #203493It’s the ludicrous rule here in Ireland that if a top-weight doesn’t run in a handicap (I think above a certain value) that the weights are raised.
This means that anyone backing Psycho even as late as Sunday morning would assume he was carrying 10-10, whereas he ended up with 11-4 after the defection of Newmill. It didn’t affect me as I got the race hopelessly wrong, but if I were a Psycho backer I’d be livid- this rule needs changing.January 12, 2009 at 23:05 #203511AnonymousInactive- Total Posts 17716
Though the rule is unfair in this case, it was brought in to alleviate another situation which was unfair in the first place; though turning it into a lottery with the trainer of the topweight having control of the balls is far from the ideal answer.
Maybe the answer would be, when the topweight is withdrawn in such circumstances, make it obligatory to withdraw all horses from the same owner of trainer?January 13, 2009 at 01:33 #203539Splurge ran a cracker.
P’tit Fute won the pertemps qualifier takingly as well.
January 13, 2009 at 01:39 #203541It’s the ludicrous rule here in Ireland that if a top-weight doesn’t run in a handicap (I think above a certain value) that the weights are raised.
This means that anyone backing Psycho even as late as Sunday morning would assume he was carrying 10-10, whereas he ended up with 11-4 after the defection of Newmill. It didn’t affect me as I got the race hopelessly wrong, but if I were a Psycho backer I’d be livid- this rule needs changing.I wouldn’t be best pleased if i’d backed him either. That’s a shitty rule.
January 13, 2009 at 02:48 #203557The pace never looked as good as I would have expected for such a competetive handicap yesterday, and the finish seemed to favour those who were in the front half of the field.
A good run from Splurge to come from the rear, but hard to know if he could follow up as conditions next time will be pretty different I would expect.
A good run from Psycho and a good ride from Davy Russell, who cottoned on to the pace early on and brought him into the race gradually, only to IMO be done for toe in the closing stages. As long as he is not rated too highly for yesterday he looks to be a serious horse in handicap company.
In terms of form, I would be leaning towards those that put in good performances from the rear, Dancing Tornado, Fen Game and Alpine Eagle all went well IMO.
If any of those 3 turned out in the county hurdle at a decent price I would happily have a go on them, especially alpine eagle who ran well from the back and should love a better clip next time.
January 13, 2009 at 04:17 #203574Though the rule is unfair in this case, it was brought in to alleviate another situation which was unfair in the first place; though turning it into a lottery with the trainer of the topweight having control of the balls is far from the ideal answer.
Maybe the answer would be, when the topweight is withdrawn in such circumstances, make it obligatory to withdraw all horses from the same owner of trainer?I was delighted to see James Willoughby addressing this in the Post today. As he says, the question of a trainer deliberately manipulating the weights should be dealt with by severe sanctions against said trainer but the possibility of that kind of abuse is by far the lesser of two evils whereby punters don’t know on the morning of a race what the weights are in a handicap, a truly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
January 13, 2009 at 08:22 #203588Not a bad idea from Reet but of course it would never work.
Simply can’t go back to days of old on this one. Capt Ryan Price was a master at manipulating the handicap by entering a top weight with no intention of running him.
The difference was his middle weighted horse would piss up most of the time as he was better off with half the field plus had a good racing weight. In this case there was no connection betwen Newmill and the winner so why all the hullabaloo?
The rule was changed for good reason and works better the way it is IMO
January 13, 2009 at 21:38 #203721Though the rule is unfair in this case, it was brought in to alleviate another situation which was unfair in the first place; though turning it into a lottery with the trainer of the topweight having control of the balls is far from the ideal answer.
Maybe the answer would be, when the topweight is withdrawn in such circumstances, make it obligatory to withdraw all horses from the same owner of trainer?I was delighted to see James Willoughby addressing this in the Post today. As he says, the question of a trainer deliberately manipulating the weights should be dealt with by severe sanctions against said trainer but the possibility of that kind of abuse is by far the lesser of two evils whereby punters don’t know on the morning of a race what the weights are in a handicap, a truly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Why should any trainer or owner be punished if one of their other horses succumbs to a late injury? Would that be the solution in any case as even trainers and owners have friends who are also owners and trainers.
In one of the big handicaps in Britain a few years ago a trainer famously did the neccessary for his ex assistant.
The trouble with Willoughby’s solution is proving it, what trainer is going to hold his hands up and say "It’s a fair cop Guv"?
It’s quite possible a lame horse could be declared.
The Irish obviously favour prevention and I just favour it too.
As has been said previously I’m amazed at the outcry over this compared to the silence over reserves which they have frequently over there and are far worse imo.January 16, 2009 at 19:56 #204391Of course you wouldn’t penalise the connections of a genuinely lame horse which was withdrawn, only if it were proved that the horse was sound and only declared for nefarious purposes. There is a precedent- Turf Club vets were sent to the yard of a horse taken out of the Thyestes Chase which allowed ante-post gamble Dun Doire to get a run. In that case they were satisfied the horse was lame. No reason they coudn’t inspect a late-withdrawn topweight. FWIW I agree completely about reserves, they’re an abomination. The need for them may well diminish anyway in the coming years as the depression reduces horse numbers.
January 17, 2009 at 21:12 #204727I had a letter in the Irish Field on this today if anyone’s interested.
January 19, 2009 at 01:49 #205027And in today’s Post!
Nice to see Don McLean agrees with me in today’s Sunday Times (Irish edition) -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.