- This topic has 385 replies, 102 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 158
You do not know it will be better at a mile than 6f until it is tried at both distances. Just because a horse is bred for a mile does not mean it will get it.
Anyway, even if the horse already has good form at 1m, there is nothing wrong with running it at 6f. As long as it is trying it’s best to win. If it is not good enough to win I do not see a problem.
Mark
ok you keep thinking horse racing is not corrupt.any person who watches horse racing with good knowlage knows the score..i know someone who gets info from a number 1 stable what horses are not trying and lays them on betfair. good luck.
Gingertipster wrote:
"If a trainer runs a horse three times at 6f when he is bred to be better at 1m is not stopping horses. The horse when it runs at 6f is still trying to win. Therefore it is NOT STOPPING HORSES. It is up to the punter to read the form and breeding to identify horses who will improve when stepped up or down in trip. "
Absolutely!
I am sure I am not alone in having a list of trainers whose horses I avoid when having a bet. You may not be in control of what owners, trainers and jockeys are doing in planning for a race and then how it is run but you have total control of which horse you place a bet on.
- Total Posts 17716
You didn’t just label someone arrogant, did you Ginge?
For clarification, there is no need for ‘no idea’ to alter anything he said.
The assertion that judges are infallible, and that any evidence is indeed all the evidence, shows an extraordinary naivety unbecoming of someone who, for their expressive faults, obviously has a fair idea what they’re talking about.
Law requires that guilt be apparent, that evidence prove beyond doubt that any individual or group is responsible for committing the acts for which they have been charged. Opinion, informed or otherwise, is far less rigid in that two seemingly hazy dots can be connected with a line borne of experience, common sense and logic. There is, obviously, little ‘real’ evidence to support the action taken against Dean McKeown, for if there were he would almost certainly be facing criminal prosecution. But do we believe in his culpability any less?
One well known trainer over the past few years has something like a 3% strike rate first time out with 2 year olds, and around 23% second time out. This is not to say the debutant will not be trying, it will win if good enough. But once a punter knows this type of statistic it makes it easier to pinpoint winners.
How does one punter know this type of statistic when it isn’t made easy to find it?
Believe me – I’m going all-out to purchase whatever stats books and form books for the 2009 flat season I can find.
Any guidance, Ginge? I know some Timeform and RP guides will be bought as a general rule.
You do not know it will be better at a mile than 6f until it is tried at both distances. Just because a horse is bred for a mile does not mean it will get it.
Anyway, even if the horse already has good form at 1m, there is nothing wrong with running it at 6f. As long as it is trying it’s best to win. If it is not good enough to win I do not see a problem.
Mark
ok you keep thinking horse racing is not corrupt.any person who watches horse racing with good knowlage knows the score..i know someone who gets info from a number 1 stable what horses are not trying and lays them on betfair. good luck.
I know a guy who ate a donkey and lived ginge
About 1 in a hundred are not trying as you put it so your friend is not getting info on so called non triers and I don’t care who he is.
I’ve heard trainers say a horse will need a run……I have heard them say the trip wont suit………I have heard them say he wont like the ground but in all my time in racing I have never heard a trainer say he was deliberatly stopping a horse for gambling purposes…..you are talking absolute garbage my friend especially if you think the PN’s Alan Kings and Henry Cecils of this world stop horses for gambling purpsoes.
HUge difference between what you are saying and what actually goes on mate………so stop talking sh*te
Fist of Fury 2k8
It is you who is talking sh*te.
There are very few directly involved within racing who do not know what is going on in certain quarters.
Instructions to deliberately stop a horse are not written down. Besides, a horse can be stopped without the assistance of the jockey. I’ve got no problem with running horses over the wrong distance etc. That’s the fault of the handicap system.
What really gets my goat are the protests that racing is almost straight. It is not and there are people out there who do not know this; who gamble to excess; they get caught up in the excitement of racing; they’re not all "working class…."; and they end up losing their homes and families who are the ones who suffer.
Those within feed off those outside. They are leeches and their callous mindset is disgusting.
And no, I’m not dribbling over my cassock.
Nor1,
So if I’m a racehorse owner, in your eyes, I’m automatically corrupt, a leech, callous and disgusting. And of course I’m fully aware that everybody else involved is also at it, but I keep that to myself.
It’s difficult to know which is worse – your insulting language or your patronising certainty that you, and only you, know the real truth.
Hi Alan
i am sure you are a desent chap, and your willingness to give useful contributions to this forum is evidence enough for me. Personally i think horseracing is life itself in microcosm… we are all struggling to find an advantage… it’s a game. The vast majority of the players are good people.
byefrom
carlisleapracing
I wondered whether I might ruffle a few feathers and you might reply.
Do you remember when you told me a few years back that every winning horse in every race run was always tested for drugs? Wrong. I even emailed the authorities on that one, yet you never wrote on here to admit your mistake.
Getting back to my post, I did not say everyone involved in racing are leeches, callous and disgusting, only those in certain quarters. As for my patronising certainty that I’m the only one who knows the truth, plenty know.
You may not be aware that I too was an owner once and still enjoy horse racing.
There are very few directly involved within racing who do not know what is going on in certain quarters.
What really gets my goat are the protests that racing is almost straight.
Nor1
1. I feel John McCririck’s fabled power of ‘they’ coming on here, as in ‘they know’.
2. Define ‘almost’!
Rob
Yes, clear as mud ……
Nor1
Just to re-iterate my opinion of ‘the situation’ as expressed in my long post on Page 7 of this thread:
‘There are corrupt elements in the game, as in all walks of life, but the game itself is not inherently corrupt.’
If you consider that corresponds to ‘almost’ then so be it.
You say that you ‘still enjoy racing’. Quite how that can be the case when you seem to hold such a blinkered and jaundiced view of the sport I’m at a loss to understand, but each to their own.
Rob
I made it clear that it was my opinion and not a fact. You cannot get in trouble for an opinion.
This is incorrect, as the Sporting Life discovered when the Ramsdens took it to court.
Nor1,
Since it seems to matter so much to you that you introduce a totally irrelevant argument from several years ago, I’m happy to publicly apologise for whatever it was I got wrong and you, undoubtedly, got right. (There seems to be a pattern here, but …….)
Back to the thread, we’ve now established that you don’t think everybody is corrupt, just a majority – I’m assuming the very few directly involved that don’t know what’s going on can be defined as a minority.
I’ll also assume that when you were an owner, your involvement was clean as driven snow.
Personally, I’d say that also applies to everybody else on here that has been an owner – TDK, David Johnson, Naps etc etc. reread the long runing thread on ‘It Must Be Love’ started by Bosranic. Does that sound like someone desperate to set up a gamble?
Presumably you’d agree that the Maktoums don’t spend all day on Betfair laying their third string maidens at Newmarket, nor does the Aga Khan, or Prince Khalid. So who makes up this majority?
I don’t for one moment expect to convince you. The whole point of being a conspiracy theorist is to deny all logical evidence claiming it’s all part of the cover up. And of course I accept there’s a small element that is more interested in earning a bent pound than an honest fiver.
So I’m left Like Rob, wondering why you bother.
You didn’t just label someone arrogant, did you Ginge?
For clarification, there is no need for ‘no idea’ to alter anything he said.
The assertion that judges are infallible, and that any evidence is indeed all the evidence, shows an extraordinary naivety unbecoming of someone who, for their expressive faults, obviously has a fair idea what they’re talking about.
Law requires that guilt be apparent, that evidence prove beyond doubt that any individual or group is responsible for committing the acts for which they have been charged. Opinion, informed or otherwise, is far less rigid in that two seemingly hazy dots can be connected with a line borne of experience, common sense and logic. There is, obviously, little ‘real’ evidence to support the action taken against Dean McKeown, for if there were he would almost certainly be facing criminal prosecution. But do we believe in his culpability any less?
Equitrack,
Of course judges do occasionally get it wrong. But to actually dismiss the case, meaning there is no point to continue to an obvious not guilty verdict, no case to answer.
To say I think he got it wrong without knowing all the evidence the judge knew is rediculous.
It could be Fallon is guilty of other things (mainly being a right idiot) but in this case, for what he was charged, he is NOT GUILTY.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.