- This topic has 49 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
I for one cant remember another character quite like
Twist Magic
,he certainly has his quirks and yesterday he took it to another level,i"m afraid he is the sort of horse that you would only bet in running these days and thats coming from someone who has always rated him highly!I can see
Denman
doing the same thing one of these days too,he is also developing a character i dont like to see in a horse!I wont mention
Syrian
!!
Looking at the Celebration Chase on Saturday at Sandown,i see
Twist Magic
is entered and by all accounts will run,there will be plenty 6/4 before the off,if he takes off and jumps the first fence in front he goes 4/6 and will win unchallenged,the skill will be hitting the play button at the right moment!Interesting for those that like a challenge!
- Total Posts 17716
These non starters do not help the image of racing.
How true. Their behaviour is shameful. The solution is surely to force Twist Magic, King Johns Castle and pals into a course of rehabilitation, including lectures from Rod Street on Racing Ethics, and heart-rending videos of a sobbing Neil Wilkins and other bookies’ hacks bewailing being forced by
vox pop
to pay out on non-starters.
These recalcitrant nags should then each write out one hundred times "Mea culpa. I faithfully swear to run like stink when the gate goes up next time", and genuflect three times in front of the golden image of John McCririck. Only then should they be allowed to race again.
‘Twist Magic and the rules’ might be a fairer headline than ‘Twist Magic and the bookmakers’.
The bookmakers don’t make the rule and would be perfectly happy I’m sure to go with a R4 deduction if that was the preferred option. Not reasonable though to expect them to pick up the tab. Many punters believe it’s unreasonable to expect them, having picked the winner and swerved the horse with dubious temperament, to pay the price though.
Big Mac is in favour of the rule 4 option. I prefer current system. If you laid Twist Magic the other day having made up your mind, maybe at Cheltenham, that the horse has had enough you’d be pretty annoyed at being penalised for being right?I appreciate your view SB but racing is about racing……not about being whether your right or not about a horse starting……….at least IMHO??………In this age of the crap about RFC I think a rule 4 should apply. The bookmakers adjust the rules when it suits them ala VC etc!!!
These non starters do not help the image of racing.
How true. Their behaviour is shameful. The solution is surely to force Twist Magic, King Johns Castle and pals into a course of rehabilitation, including lectures from Rod Street on Racing Ethics, and heart-rending videos of a sobbing Neil Wilkins and other bookies’ hacks bewailing being forced by
vox pop
to pay out on non-starters.
These recalcitrant nags should then each write out one hundred times "Mea culpa. I faithfully swear to run like stink when the gate goes up next time", and genuflect three times in front of the golden image of John McCririck. Only then should they be allowed to race again.
Heh heh spot on Pinza!!!
I am truly amazed at this thread!!
Surely to God its a case of "pay your money and make your choice"!!!!
There have been numerous dodgy starters over the years and anyone with any small amount of knowledge knew the facts before placing a bet. Twist magic is just another along these lines!! In the past horses like Vodkatini have done the same thing and refused to race and then gone and won at 16/1 or something like afterwards and IT IS a case of taking on board all the facts and deciding whether it is worth a bet!!
And to be honest I am sick of people whingeing about the fact that they have lost money becasue of this that or the other when in fact you have lost money because you backed the wrong horse(i.e. not the winner). I myself do this with amazing regularity and I hate whingers!!
So get over it unless you think bookies ought to pay out on bad luck or that this rule 4 idea is good. I personally can’t see this being fair to every other person that bet something else in the race and having a reduced SP because one horse refused to start!!If I’d backed the winner, why should I have a deduction from my winnings because a horse that has shown signs of reluctance at the start in the past refused to race.
So would you be quite happy if a horse with NO previous history could lead to you losing money by for the first time refusing to race?
Twist Magic has shown a reluctance to line up once in Dec 2008, a problem resolved by leading him in.
Rule 4 is there to protect the interests of bookmakers. If a horse, well-backed, refuses to go into the stalls the consequentially exaggerated odds of the runners that do run are reduced.
Are there rules that specify the efforts that a starter of a National Hunt race must make to try to ensure a horse, with history or not,takes part? The ATR coverage , as seen in the bookies and subsequently online does not show exactly what happened with Twist Magic, so I have not seen the moments leading up to the start.I have seen recent races where the starter has gone to some lengths to give horses every chance.
Can consistent treatment by starters be guaranteed? We need a rule that protects punters such as if the horse does not go past the start-line then R4 applies and stakes on the horse are refunded and returns on the winner reduced.It’s not just about anticipating whether or not a horse will start, it’s about assessing the horse’s overall willingness or ability to ‘co-operate’ and to race.
I’m with Channon who says there’s no such thing as an ungenuine horse, just horses whose problems haven’t been worked out yet. Twist Magic has bounced back from Cheltenham meltdown for the previous two years, this year he didn’t bounce back.
People who backed Denman yesterday are presumably satisfied because the horse started. But the truth is they had no chance of winning pretty much from the moment the tapes went up.
I agree with TAPK that we’ll see Denman fail to jump off some day soon (maybe when fav for the National anyone?!). I would argue though that the possibility that Denman may not be in the ‘giving vein’ on the day was very much factored into his price. He might easily have been made an odds-on shot and had he won with his head in chest a lot of people would have said ‘what a price that was!’.
As it was a win and place lay of Denman was the only bet of the day for me on my blog yesterday. Not because I’m psychic but because there was a good chance that right handed on quick, and rapidly getting quicker, ground the big horse might decide he didn’t fancy it. The clues had been there in various of his previous perfomances.
It’s all part of the glorious uncertainty that makes racing what it is. I thought Twist Magic would run well. I was wrong. I thought Denman would run bad, I was right.
As for the rights and wrongs of the R4 vs status quo there are pros and cons on both sides. R4s are extremely unpopular with many punters, a pain in the backside generally for bookmakers, and incomprehensible to novice racegoers. Most newbies wouldn’t really register that a horse hasn’t started but they’d certainly register a deduction of 20p out of every pound they thought they’d ‘won’.
I prefer the status quo but I certainly wouldn’t die in a ditch for it and the R4 alternative can be argued perfectly reasonably too.The current system is NOT fair it’s wrong. In NH a lot of reliance has to be placed on the starter as there are no stalls.
That is not fair to him and not fair to the punter, bookmaker or trainer when a horse refuses to start.Some of you claim you are actually making money out of it by betting against ‘dodgy’ starters!
That is NOT right.
Can’t remember RR every costing/making me money so I am simply looking at this from a racing viewpoint. Bring on R4, if that is what it’s called, for both flat and jumps and make it the stewards decision (after enquiry) if it applies.
Twist Magic has shown problems at the start before. It is up to the punter to decide whether the price is worth the risk.
Hate to say I told you so but…..
Page 21 of the "QMCC Looking Ahead" thread in CHELTENHAM section.
"Don’t be surprised if he plants himself at the start".
Once the tapes go up you’ve got a "run for your money".
Had I backed the winner, and studied form, working out Twist Magic is a XXX; I’d be furious if a R4 applied.
Value Is EverythingIts not just the big bookies, my local small bookmakers, Jack Pearsons, refused to refund my bet as they said ‘it wasn’t down as a non runner, therefore no refund’. It is simply outrageous, and punters have been robbed blind again.
I agree with TAPK that we’ll see Denman fail to jump off some day soon (maybe when fav for the National anyone?!).
Having just read the above Sean,i felt a sickly sensation in the pit of my stomach! The Denman we are seeing currently would end up being killed in next years National,for all his presence yesterday and hats off to connections for getting him to look in such magnificent condition,the horse is Mentally unbalanced and he travels with a laboured appearance,even his jumping is not as fluent as it used to be! Imagine the greatest spectacle in racing,the Grand National,Denmans got 2 million pounds on his back,he"s 5/1 fav with 11-10lb,Joe public have heard his many feats in winning Hennesseys with a ton on his back and he refuses to race! I have this favourite saying,"If it can happen it will happen",i have applied that philosophy to Kauto Stars Jumping for the last 4 years and he kept proving me wrong,mind you,some of the mistakes he"s made and got away with,would have killed other horses!I hope for Denmans sake he keeps away from Aintree!
Gingertipster
22 Apr 2010, 09:02
by Gingertipster on 22 Apr 2010, 09:02
Twist Magic has shown problems at the start before. It is up to the punter to decide whether the price is worth the risk.Totally disagree.
If you want to drive the public away you are going the right way about it. It is SO simple to change the current rule if one does exist on RR. Horse refuses to race it’s a void bet and R4 applies.
Stewards decision not the bookmakers.
Bring it on…….
Fryern,
The start is all part of the race. If I’ve studied the form and allowed for a dodgy starter, why should I pay for those who haven’t studied/allowed for the horse planting himself?
By studying form I can also work out the likely poor jumpers. May be you’d like me to pay for all those who’ve backed a faller at the first too?
You can not expect anyone who’s put hard work in studying form, to pay for someone who either hasn’t, or thought the risk worth taking.
Punters should take responsibility for their own bets. I sympathise with anyone who’s horse doesn’t get to the first, or a faller. But don’t expect me to pay him out from my winnings.
Value Is EverythingIts not just the big bookies, my local small bookmakers, Jack Pearsons, refused to refund my bet as they said ‘it wasn’t down as a non runner, therefore no refund’. It is simply outrageous, and punters have been robbed blind again.
It’s you who wants to rob punters who’ve backed the winner. Doubt if it makes any difference to bookies if a R4 is made or not.
Value Is EverythingFryern wrote..Some of you claim you are actually making money out of it by betting against ‘dodgy’ starters!
Not necessarily true, Fryern. Over the years I’ve had some nice touches on horses with a reputation for not starting or starting slowly or left in the stalls. My willingness to take a chance that I’ll get a decent run out of them has, to a large extent, been persuaded by what I perceive to be more generous odds in comparison with their true ability minus quirks. When they do bring home the bacon it’s been very satisfying knowing that my faith/intuition has been rewarded.
If the rules are to be changed in respect of horses then surely it’s only a matter of time before greyhound punters start demanding their stakes be refunded in respect of dogs turned the wrong way round when the traps open or stumbling and losing all chance at the start. You pays your money you takes your chance.
When KJC was left at the start I just shrugged my shoulders and thought "There’s always next year" You’ve just got to be philosophical about these things, some you win, some you lose.
What would be interesting to know though is whether or not, upon seeing a horse with history playing up at the start, bookmakers automatically shorten up the prices on others in the race. That would be unfair.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.