- This topic has 295 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Clonmel was a jumps meeting, no relevance to flat racing. Most people don’t object to plenty of watering for jumps racing.
Glad you confirmed Newmarket Guineas meeting was not on the good to firm side, maybe Gingertipster will take note now.
Two of those 5 deaths came in bumpers Eddie, no "jump" involved. Some "relevence" surely?
Although I believe Prosser’s Newmarket going report accurate Eddie, have no problem with anyone who believes the going was "good". I’ve even said myself on this thread it is possible the ground was genuinely good. Difference between good-firm, good in places and good isn’t that great. It is anyone that believes conditions were on the
soft
side of good I am countering here.
Value Is EverythingClick on the Ascot link to view the current going map
http://www.turftrax.co.uk/going_maps.html
Pretty disappointing IMO.
Two of those 5 deaths came in bumpers Eddie, no "jump" involved. Some "relevence" surely?
You cannot be serious!
That 2 horses aged 6 and 7 making their debuts (that should tell you something) in bumpers at a minor Irish jumps meeting should have any bearing on top class flat racing at top flat tracks in Britain
Two of those 5 deaths came in bumpers Eddie, no "jump" involved. Some "relevence" surely?
You cannot be serious!
That 2 horses aged 6 and 7 making their debuts (that should tell you something) in bumpers at a minor Irish jumps meeting should have any bearing on top class flat racing at top flat tracks in Britain
I said "
some
relevence" Eddie
. Of course there are other factors involved. But is it not possible… That just asbumpers
who have had
injuries
face a
bigger danger on firm
… So too do
flat
horses who have had
injuries
then face a
bigger danger
when running on
firm
ground?
Hate to break it to you, but the Irish thoroughbred is the same breed as the British thoroughbred.
Value Is EverythingTwo of those 5 deaths came in bumpers Eddie, no "jump" involved. Some "relevence" surely?
You cannot be serious!
That 2 horses aged 6 and 7 making their debuts (that should tell you something) in bumpers at a minor Irish jumps meeting should have any bearing on top class flat racing at top flat tracks in Britain
I said "
some
relevence" Eddie
. Of course there are other factors involved. But is it not possible… That just asbumpers
who have had
injuries
face a
bigger danger on firm
… So too do
flat
horses who have had
injuries
then face a
bigger danger
when running on
firm
ground?
Hate to break it to you, but the Irish thoroughbred is the same breed as the British thoroughbred.
I would like to see some actual statistics as to "firm" turf actually being more dangerous than "good" turf. There
is
known correlation between horses running in lower level races (claiming/selling races) and more fatal injuries, and sprints having more injuries than routes, and 2yos being more vulnerable than older horses, so any statistics would need to control for those variables. But the English conventional wisdom of Horses Should Never Ever Run on Firm Ground makes little sense to me without actual evidence to back it up.
But then again what do I know, my favorite flat horses run on dirt.
The watering directive states to produce good to firm ground, that’s not been done. The round course should not have been watered, top of the ground horses on the first day have been compromised by it with the weather that we’ve had. Horses wanting cut should have been disadvantaged.
It’s just not fair, the ground should not be watered to produce "perfect" ground it should be fast ground.
Do they produce "perfect" ground when it rains a lot?Eddie,
I believe the BHA directive says a multi-day meeting can be watered to produce ground a little softer than good-firm; so that less watering is needed mid-week (close to race time) to help prevent slippery surfaces.However, often Clerks describe ground as (for want of a better word)
gooder
than it actually is. I’d be surprised if the ground is not nearer genuine good-firm than good today. Time(s) will tell.
Value Is Everything"Gingertipster)
However, often Clerks describe ground as (for want of a better word)
than it actually is. I’d be surprised if the ground is not nearer genuine good-firm than good today. Time(s) will tell.
Think the times will be quite quick on the straight track, not sure about the round course with it being slower ground.
Any chance Chris Stickels could have an apology from those who said he should not have watered?
Had he not watered the ground today would’ve been HARD, with wholesale non-runners. It’s a good job yout aren’t Clerk Of Ascot.
Time 1.07 seconds faster than standard.
That said, Stickels should himself apologise for putting punters away. Ground conditions are at least good-firm if not firm. As predicted, for the second year running conditions are much firmer than advertised.
Value Is EverythingAny chance Chris Stickels could have an apology from those who said he should not have watered?
Had he not watered the ground today would’ve been HARD, with wholesale non-runners. It’s a good job yout aren’t Clerk Of Ascot.
Time 1.07 seconds faster than standard.
That said, Stickels should himself apologise for putting punters away. Ground conditions are at least good-firm if not firm. As predicted, for the second year running conditions are much firmer than advertised.
Gingertipster, I am apologising for nothing. We go off what we are told and if we are told that the going is one thing but it is actually something else then the fault lies with whoever gives out the information.
If the ground is good to firm say it is good to firm!!!
Any chance Chris Stickels could have an apology from those who said he should not have watered?
Had he not watered the ground today would’ve been HARD, with wholesale non-runners. It’s a good job yout aren’t Clerk Of Ascot.
Time 1.07 seconds faster than standard.
That said, Stickels should himself apologise for putting punters away. Ground conditions are at least good-firm if not firm. As predicted, for the second year running conditions are much firmer than advertised.
Gingertipster, I am apologising for nothing. We go off what we are told and if we are told that the going is one thing but it is actually something else then the fault lies with whoever gives out the information.
If the ground is good to firm say it is good to firm!!!
How would it have been hard? They have to water to produce good to firm
Shouldn’t water before all that rain, wait till nearer the time and water if required. Straight track is always quicker than the round track. Why not produce good to firm and water to maintain? Not rocket science Gingertipster
How would it have been hard? They have to water to produce good to firm
Shouldn’t water before all that rain, wait till nearer the time and water if required. Straight track is always quicker than the round track. Why not produce good to firm and water to maintain? Not rocket science Gingertipster
Correct!
A couple of days of sunshine in the UK is not going to produce hard ground, certainly not with the amount of water that is still in the ground thanks to two years of above average rainfall.
I haven’t even played on a ‘hard’ cricket wicket yet this season and that is with the bloody covers on. These horses would get their toe into our square no problems.
If the ground is really firm then I’d expect War Command to run better than he did in the Guineas. Let’s see what happens.
Personally, I’d prefer regular updates on going stick readings taken at various points throughout the entire course, length and breadth. That way there’d be no confusion, and no argument. Can’t argue with real facts and figures.
Any chance Chris Stickels could have an apology from those who said he should not have watered?
Had he not watered the ground today would’ve been HARD, with wholesale non-runners. It’s a good job yout aren’t Clerk Of Ascot.
Time 1.07 seconds faster than standard.
That said, Stickels should himself apologise for putting punters away. Ground conditions are at least good-firm if not firm. As predicted, for the second year running conditions are much firmer than advertised.
What allowance did you make for the tail wind Ginger?
Hope you didn’t forget about itAny chance Chris Stickels could have an apology from those who said he should not have watered?
Had he not watered the ground today would’ve been HARD, with wholesale non-runners. It’s a good job yout aren’t Clerk Of Ascot.
Time 1.07 seconds faster than standard.
That said, Stickels should himself apologise for putting punters away. Ground conditions are at least good-firm if not firm. As predicted, for the second year running conditions are much firmer than advertised.
What allowance did you make for the tail wind Ginger?
Hope you didn’t forget about itI wasn’t aware of any Eddie. If so then yes, it would’ve been a factor to consider and may be ground conditions are not as firm as times suggest.
EDIT: RUK says there was indeed a fairly strong head wind.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.