- This topic has 5 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
A mud-spattered Oaks field strung out like a mid-Winter Irish bumper field was bad enough now, after a mostly hot July, Heavy going officially first day of Glorious Goodwood and cut in the ground all week.
And two horses broken down – when was the last time a horse broke down at Bath, where they never water?
Overwatering weakens root structures and produces false ground.
Epsom and Goodwood had surfaces which were the product of man interfering with nature by artificially watering.
Is it good for the game?
Is it weakening the breed in the long run?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Agree. Unless Mother Nature decides otherwise, Flat racing in High Summer should be taking place on good, fast ground.
I simply do not understand this obsession with avoiding the word firm in the going description. Where is the evidence it is bad for horses?
I am sure I can remember Richard Hughes talking about this subject a few years ago in his Racing Post column. He believed some tracks had been ruined by overwatering, in particular Ripon and Yarmouth (if I remember rightly).
To think that racing used to still go ahead at tracks like Bath, Brighton and Carlisle when the official going was “hard”!
3 horses. 2 year old filly Quick Sylva was pulled up injured on Thursday. Fractured pelvis apparently though, thankfully, sounds like she’s expected to make a full recovery in time.
Mark Johnston brought this up a couple of years back as well.
My issue is the tired explanation of horse welfare being used for a reason to water – if that is the case then racing at Bath should be regularly abandoned because unless mother nature drops by they constantly race on firm ground with seemingly no issue.
I would be interested in some research being down to test the theory as I am sure artificially watered ground could be just as dangerous for a horse as fast ground – it was interesting that we had really fast ground for the King George, but lets be honest that was only achieved because the forecast looked nailed on for signicant run to fall overnight (which stopped them from watering) only for mother nature to punk them with Ascot getting such a miniscule amount it was insignificant – didn’t hear of any issues with horse being injured running on that ground either.
Perception (a word I hate when used in context to horse racing) dictates that clerks be seen to be doing everything to avoid producing fast turf conditions just in case a horse gets injured yet with little to know evidence to support that position.
Look at Goodwood today, the Stewards Cup consolation race & the Stewards Cup itself they were strung out like a 3m novice chase in the depths of winter with the last horse being beaten in the consolation race over 32L and in the big race almost 28L with one horse actually pulled up….in 6F races!
The idea that Bath never water the course is no longer the case. This is the going report on the results page of the Post website for Bath on June 12th, this year:
Going: FIRM (Watered; 9.4)
It’s only using a bowser, but the clerk publicly stated that they were putting on 3mm of water each day (he didn’t say for how many days) to promote germination and growth.
As for why courses are watered, the answer is simple – money. The media rights payments they receive depend on field size and they know that trainers won’t run on firm ground. And ironically, the main reason many will give you for avoiding firm ground, is that constant watering produces uneven going, so that ‘firm’ can mean everything from hard to good in the space of a few furlongs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.