- This topic has 144 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Utter nonsense totally unnecessary, and pathetic.
They’ve raced, without any problems, on ground officially described as "Firm" at the meeting earlier this century.
It’s mid-summer, for crying out loud.
At least two horses pulled up lame so far that I can see and plenty seemingly ill at ease on the going, which would be verging on hard if they didn’t water. To call watering "pathetic" is hard to comprehend.
2 out of how many total runners?
Do you think some horses struggled because the going was given as ‘good’ when it was clearly not good and obviously much quicker? Perhaps the initial going description, which was patently false, encouraged horses to run that wouldn’t if the quick ground had been admitted?
Absolute nonsense of affairs.
- Total Posts 17716
Yep: God knows how racing survived 3 centuries without the hosepipe?
They are watering because of the course records (horses ran "fast" in other words, far too fast) and we can’t have any-more of those. We are not allowed course records in Britain! And this is despite the fact the Ascot track is just a few years old.
This is a good question, i dont understand it personally!
Is there an official explanation?
Number of races with firm ground since 1997 in UK
1997 – 322
1998 – 116
1999 – 175
2000 – 319
2001 – 336
2002 – 362
2003 – 479
2004 – 296
2005 – 288
2006 – 339
2007 – 186
2008 – 101
2009 – 183
2010 – 33Not a single coherent, logical explanation has been given informally or laid down in the rules of racing for the mass alteration of racing conditions on an almost daily basis on the flat.
According to BBC Weather Forecast (for the Berkshire area) a few showers are on the cards for Friday.
Fingers crossed then that we don’t get an Ascot watering, more rain than expected, Good To Firm turns into Good To Soft, 28 Non-Runners scenario.
Or is that a bit far fetched?
Last thing we need is over-watering and then some good old British weather (i.e. RAIN)
Even if that does happen surely trainers won’t pull too many of their horses out? Prize money on offer would surely tempt them to have a pop regardless of softer conditions?
- Total Posts 17716
Have any trainers, or indeed jockeys, expressed a concern over the likely state of the ground after a day of uninterrupted sunshine, Big Buck’s?
I would hazard a guess that you don’t know.
In any case, how can the maintenance of unarguably perfect racing ground be construed as non-sensical, unnecessary or pathetic?
Ascot saw no rain on Tuesday afternoon, when the ground was described as ‘fantastic’ by Aidan O’Brien, and was thoroughly baked on Wednesday when at least two course records were broken. Now, exceptional time performances are by no means an indication of the need to water, but fast ground after a third dry, warm day is going to be verging on road-like; why should such an extreme be tolerated when bottomless ground is universally despised?
The decision to water is absolutely the right one, if only for the fact that a little bit of rain on rock-hard ground would turn to Ascot in to something resembling an ice rink.
Why?
Because not watering runs a big risk of unsafe hard ground. The forecast suggests little rain all week. Waiting would probably result in needing more water later on in the week. This (I’d imagine) would mean more damage to the grass than it does putting smaller amounts on at more regular intervals.How did they survive without a hosepipe Reet? Well not watering would result in widespread non-runners. No doubt you’d like to go back to the 1960’s, when there was very little watering. In 1968 the Prince Of Wales had two runners, St James’s Palace three. I don’t know what the ground was, but suspect firm ground.
I think it is you who’s being pathetic BB, for suggesting they shouldn’t water. Safety of horses is paramount.
Value Is EverythingHave any trainers, or indeed jockeys, expressed a concern over the likely state of the ground after a day of uninterrupted sunshine, Big Buck’s?
I would hazard a guess that you don’t know.
In any case, how can the maintenance of unarguably perfect racing ground be construed as non-sensical, unnecessary or pathetic?
Ascot saw no rain on Tuesday afternoon, when the ground was described as ‘fantastic’ by Aidan O’Brien, and was thoroughly baked on Wednesday when at least two course records were broken. Now, exceptional time performances are by no means an indication of the need to water, but fast ground after a third dry, warm day is going to be verging on road-like; why should such an extreme be tolerated when bottomless ground is universally despised?
The decision to water is absolutely the right one, if only for the fact that a little bit of rain on rock-hard ground would turn to Ascot in to something resembling an ice rink.
1) Only one I know of is Henry Cecil not wanting ‘jar’ in the ground for Manifest. Purple Moon wants it really fast, Akmal and Kite Wood do too. So should we water their chances away to suit horses who can’t handle fast mid-summer ground? No, I don’t think so either.
2) So we have ground at the start of the meeting was declared "good" or, that ridiculous notion, "perfect" – and according to you we now have going stick reading indicating HARD ground or ground resembling tarmac? Is it true that racing in the past decades fell to pieces when there was no rain and no watering?
3) I have never heard, nor been told of, occasions where rain on fast mid-summer ground turned that ground into "an ice rink". It is patently nonsense. The latest ice rink occurred at Ayr, when they drenched the bend and caused horses to slip up and fall over. Let’s hope no horses slip up and fall over tomorrow eh?
Honestly, the lack of knowledge and willingness to uncritically assess what is going on beggars belief. Especially after the farce of last years meeting.
Why?
Because not watering runs a big risk of unsafe hard ground. The forecast suggests little rain all week. Waiting would probably result in needing more water later on in the week. This (I’d imagine) would mean more damage to the grass than it does putting smaller amounts on at more regular intervals.How did they survive without a hosepipe Reet? Well not watering would result in widespread non-runners. No doubt you’d like to go back to the 1960’s, when there was very little watering. In 1968 the Prince Of Wales had two runners, St James’s Palace three. I don’t know what the ground was, but suspect firm ground.
I think it is you who’s being pathetic BB, for suggesting they shouldn’t water. Safety of horses is paramount.
Please can you define "unsafe ground" and provide evidence of ground that is "unsafe" on the flat relative to injuries sustained by flat racehorses running on such ground? Also, can you provide evidence of where in the rules of racing this mandate is laid down because you appear to be reading a page none of the rest of us have access to? I suspect I’m in for a long wait. Watering has virtually nothing to do with safety on the flat. Further can you stipulate the amounts of water you refer to? You seem to know exactly how much to put on, where to put it and when, I’m glad you do, because no-one else has any evidence for it. You’ve fallen for the "safety" angle without a moments pause as to where the evidence exists to even support it. Here’s a clue, there is none. If there is, please put it on here and we’ll discuss it. I look forward to seeing it.
Honestly, the lack of knowledge and willingness to uncritically assess what is going on beggars belief. Especially after the farce of last years meeting.
And some people would seemingly rather see even more horses pulling up lame.
"Two horses (finishing lame) out of how many?"
Value Is EverythingI was just looking through the going-stick readings at Ascot and I’m surprised they were able to race on the following dates….
26th July 2009
11th July 2009
10th July 2009And I could continue, but on those days, in the view of some on this thread, the ground was unsafe. Why? Because the going-stick read higher than 10 in parts of the track, and as Stickels must water when it’s below 10 like now, the ground must have been unsafe and hundreds of horses must have died.
Why?
Because not watering runs a big risk of unsafe hard ground. The forecast suggests little rain all week. Waiting would probably result in needing more water later on in the week. This (I’d imagine) would mean more damage to the grass than it does putting smaller amounts on at more regular intervals.How did they survive without a hosepipe Reet? Well not watering would result in widespread non-runners. No doubt you’d like to go back to the 1960’s, when there was very little watering. In 1968 the Prince Of Wales had two runners, St James’s Palace three. I don’t know what the ground was, but suspect firm ground.
I think it is you who’s being pathetic BB, for suggesting they shouldn’t water. Safety of horses is paramount.
Please can you define "unsafe ground" and provide evidence of ground that is "unsafe" on the flat relative to injuries sustained by flat racehorses running on such ground? Also, can you provide evidence of where in the rules of racing this mandate is laid down because you appear to be reading a page none of the rest of us have access to? I suspect I’m in for a long wait. Watering has virtually nothing to do with safety on the flat. Further can you stipulate the amounts of water you refer to? You seem to know exactly how much to put on, where to put it and when, I’m glad you do, because no-one else has any evidence for it. You’ve fallen for the "safety" angle without a moments pause as to where the evidence exists to even support it. Here’s a clue, there is none. If there is, please put it on here and we’ll discuss it. I look forward to seeing it.
BB,
When it is you who is shouting that they should not water, and hard ground has nothing to do with safety. Going against what the experts believe. No doubt the BHA have consulted equine and turf specialists. What are your qualifications on this matter BB? It should be you coming up with the evidence to justify your stance.As I’ve told you before, I used not to believe in watering. But talked to a racecourse vet who’s done his own study in to these things. I’ve also spoken to jockeys doctor, Dr Prichard, who also said jockey injuries go up significantly on firm ground.
It’s just blindingly obvious that the harder the surface, the more
injuries and fatalities
. A racehorse’s bones are bound to have more stress galloping on firm ground than good-firm.
Look forward to hearing why you think differently to the experts.Value Is EverythingBB,
When it is you who is shouting that they should not water, and hard ground has nothing to do with safety. Going against what the experts believe. No doubt the BHA have consulted equine and turf specialists. What are your qualifications on this matter BB?
As I’ve told you before, I used not to believe in watering. But talked to a racecourse vet who’s done his own study in to these things. I’ve also spoken to jockeys doctor, Dr Prichard, who also said jockey injuries go up significantly on firm ground.I’d be totally stunned if the BHA have consulted anyone but that’s a different issue.
And how does the rest of the world function? America and Japan in particular?
And if the BHA have consulted so many people, why is it ok to race on Firm ground if it is unsafe? Why are we racing tomorrow in other words?
You can’t be selective with safety. Royal Ascot should now be abandoned, no?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.