- This topic has 137 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Let Sir Mark run his horses at the wrong trip.
As long as even with trip limitations, he’s trying to win the race
. What’s the problem? We can all see the ones likely to improve at a longer trip anyway.
But he doesn’t try to win the race does he? Not you personally, but anyone who thinks he is trying to win a race – when he puts a stamina-laden horse in a six furlong race as a two-year-old, it opens at 8/1 and drifts to 33/1 – is a fool.
Studying pedigree alone, it’s not difficult to see that some of Sir Mark’s entries are ridiculous in terms of winning the race, and are purely intended for 1) education, 2) handicap mark for later in career. Nothing against the rules perhaps, but it doesn’t sit well with me.
Father – winner of three races at 8f & 9f at two, excelled at 14f.
Mother – unraced at two, winner of 6 races at 14f and beyond.
Unraced two-year-old offspring’s race entries – 5F Maiden Chester, 5F Maiden Epsom
Exaggerated example perhaps – but anyone who doesn’t know what I mean is very naive.
It may be that a stamina laden horse won’t have the speed and would stand a better chance over a longer trip. But the point is, IF it so happened the horse did show just enough speed to be competitive; the jockey will still be trying to win the race. And that is all we can ask for.
Sir Mark is only running these horses over "inadequate trips" because he believes it will not prejudice their handicap mark. Even if it wins the race; the fact it is bred to be much better over further, means he’s still likely to be well handicapped when racing at his optimum trip. By running a horse over a trip short of its best enables the jockey to be
"trying"
, without showing the handicapper what it is capable of.
A middle-distance bred animal can win over sprint distances at two, if the grade is a lot less than his true ability.
Whether the horse would stand a better chance at a longer trip means nothing. As long as the jockey is trying to win, then he is TRYING to win.
In a similar way: Blue Bunting in the 1000 Guineas. Going in to the race, connections did not believe they had a Guineas filly, and on breeding would have stood a much greater chance in the Pretty Polly. Yet took her chance and won the race. Was she "trying to win"? Of course she was, despite connections giving her a "sighter" for the Oaks.
Value Is EverythingAs long as Ballydoyle and other large operations are allowed to use the racecourse as training grounds this will never stop.When we know that a horse will not win first time out but will improve from the run the race course is being used to train the horse.This is wrong and should be stopped.Any time a horse goes out on the race track he should be fit enough to win that race.If a permit holder does that same thing he is banned for months.
Tuffers , yes , it will be good to see who is on the hot list for 2010, this will of course add further spice to the theory that Racing is bent ….and if your an outsider looking in , then surely that opinion must be reinforced in spades
British Racing is shot to pieces , when will the jumps boys get their day in the sun is the next question
Ricky
Cav, yes, interesting that the approach is different this time.
Don’t know if you’re looking in Paul/Silvoir but, if you are, would you be able to comment on the distinction between the Fallon/Lynch/Williams case that merited their suspension from riding and the current case where it appears the jockeys who have been charged will continue to ride.
in the DAILY MAIL it say’s that kirsty.is the girlfriend of six-times champion kieron fallon
a law should come in to stop laying on horses.that should help somewhat
How would you get a bet on?
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if those charged start banging in winners all over the place in the coming fortnight, starting today.
Thats what usually happens.
a law should come in to stop laying on horses.that should help somewhat
While I disagree with this, I think the moment betting exchanges started popping up (no names), the fiddler’s job became a whole lot easier.
A 5yo can click a pink button with a mouse, bang! One horse wagered on to win money for losing a race. You can even pay a guy to pay a guy to lay the horse to cover up the trail. The actual layer could be Joe Bloggs from down the pub. It is impossible, and financially unviable to chase the trail all the way back to the person who benefits the most. The trail could even have several branches to distribute the stake evenly. Absolutely impossible to police.The BHA is a laughing matter not competent to rule racing.They isolate the most humble of participants and warn them off.They bend over backwards to allow the big crooks to continue.No need to name names.We all can see what is obvious.I have been pointing out the abuse foisted on Fallon during his "target period" by the BHA.But people kept sidelining the issue because they did not like his character or associates.Now it is clear to all that they just wanted to get him even though the evidence would not stand up in court.Any wonder he resorted to drug use!I just wonder how many of these accusations will stand up in court.
I’ll tell you what is laughable, the idea that small punters give two hoots in any way shape or form. Bent races have been around since racing began, it hasn’t stopped any ‘small punter’ yet.
It might stop the bigger gambler but as most of those go on Betfair to bet on horses to lose, I really couldn’t give a damn about them if they get their pockets emptied.As for this ‘horses training on the racecourse’ lark, how else do you get a horse used to race conditions. Maybe debutants should only be allowed to race against debutants.
If the system can be exploited to allow horses to be run over inadequate trips, then the system needs to be changed. You can’t blame anyone for making the most of it. Maybe maidens should only be allowed to race against maidens & not be allowed into handicaps until they’ve won a race.
Back to topic rather than the usual ‘copy & pasted’ statements about how bent racing in general is & how useless the BHA are, I don’t see any of those races being particularly suspect & I’d be surprised at any guilty verdicts. Maybe like the John Higgins snooker ban, the authorities want to be seen as looking good & ending up with a resolution that satisfies no-one.
Maybe some more seasoned race watchers can shed some light on what the BHA could see as wrong with those rides? Or is it (again like Higgins), more what happened behind the scenes than the actual event?
I’ll tell you what is laughable, the idea that small punters give two hoots in any way shape or form. Bent races have been around since racing began, it hasn’t stopped any ‘small punter’ yet.
It might stop the bigger gambler but as most of those go on Betfair to bet on horses to lose, I really couldn’t give a damn about them if they get their pockets emptied.As for this ‘horses training on the racecourse’ lark, how else do you get a horse used to race conditions. Maybe debutants should only be allowed to race against debutants.
If the system can be exploited to allow horses to be run over inadequate trips, then the system needs to be changed. You can’t blame anyone for making the most of it. Maybe maidens should only be allowed to race against maidens & not be allowed into handicaps until they’ve won a race.
Back to topic rather than the usual ‘copy & pasted’ statements about how bent racing in general is & how useless the BHA are, I don’t see any of those races being particularly suspect & I’d be surprised at any guilty verdicts. Maybe like the John Higgins snooker ban, the authorities want to be seen as looking good & ending up with a resolution that satisfies no-one.
Maybe some more seasoned race watchers can shed some light on what the BHA could see as wrong with those rides? Or is it (again like Higgins), more what happened behind the scenes than the actual event?
I don’t think the races on their own show anything. It is more the suspicious betting patterns, combined with a horse ‘conveniently’ missing the break or being held up behind a wall of horses. Especially if the horse finishes like a train.
I’ll tell you what is laughable, the idea that small punters give two hoots in any way shape or form. Bent races have been around since racing began, it hasn’t stopped any ‘small punter’ yet.
I have several acquaintances who bet on football (primarily) and other sports but won’t touch racing because of their belief that there are insiders who are able to manipulate the outcome.
Is there evidence Anthony that the small punter isn’t put off by perceived skullduggery? Isn’t racing’s share of the betting pie decreasing? Wouldn’t that indicate people are finding racing a less attractive betting medium? Couldn’t the perception (supported by yesterday’s announcement) that racing is ‘bent’ be one of the factors in that reduction in betting interest?
I’m pretty sure it is to some extent.
Another thought –
I wonder what the powers-that-be at the BHA make of their new Board member employing one of those charged on the day after the announcement.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, just wondering what they make of it.
Another thought –
I wonder what the powers-that-be at the BHA make of their new Board member employing one of those charged on the day after the announcement.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, just wondering what they make of it.
Ahh but remember Corm, the new Board member is "always trying" – some may say "very trying"
I’ll tell you what is laughable, the idea that small punters give two hoots in any way shape or form. Bent races have been around since racing began, it hasn’t stopped any ‘small punter’ yet.
I have several acquaintances who bet on football (primarily) and other sports but won’t touch racing because of their belief that there are insiders who are able to manipulate the outcome.
Is there evidence Anthony that the small punter isn’t put off by perceived skullduggery? Isn’t racing’s share of the betting pie decreasing? Wouldn’t that indicate people are finding racing a less attractive betting medium? Couldn’t the perception (supported by yesterday’s announcement) that racing is ‘bent’ be one of the factors in that reduction in betting interest?
I’m pretty sure it is to some extent.
Racing’s share of the betting pie isn’t decreasing insomuch as the pie is bigger & there are massively more slices for people to chose from. A more apt example would be the number of people who flock to FOTBs. They’re custom designed to be a fleece but people crowd around them anyway.
I’m also willing to bet that your acquaintances didn’t leave betting on racing for betting on football. They started on football to begin with.
I have several acquaintances who bet on football (primarily) and other sports but won’t touch racing because of their belief that there are insiders who are able to manipulate the outcome.
I’ve watched something in the region of 3,000 games of football over the past 40 years. The game is riddled with instances of cheating and attempting to con the officials, from park football up to the World Cup Final. Whether it’s for money or the satisfaction of winning a game then there is someone willing to bend the rules to get an edge. From my own sporting experience the rules of cricket can be very elastic, and that was just to gain the odd win in the local league…
On the matter of the current investigation, the whole business now descends to a press led ramble of gossip and half truths. On one side there’s an ‘in depth investigation’ and on the other ‘it wasn’t me, guvnor’.
In any group of 100 people you would find a small percentage who would cheerfully take money to influence an outcome. On that basis it’s no surprise that a few might do the same in racing. As long as betting takes place on racing then inevitably someone will try to get an edge by means which might be deemed foul. There are people on here who have stated on threads that they wouldn’t give money back if they were overpaid by bookmakers. Let he who is without sin, and all that…
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.