- This topic has 144 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I completely agree with BB here.
The ground description on Wednesday was Good – Good to Firm in places but was later changed to Good to Firm – Good in places.
We have seven different going descriptions in Britain, the two ‘hardest’ being Hard and Firm. So why do Ascot need to water when the official going at the end of play on Wednesday was Good to Firm – Good in places. Surely the next description for the ground, assuming another dry 24 hours, is going to be Firm at worst. This is an official going description of horseracing – so why aren’t horses being allowed to run on it?
I’m all for horse safety, but surely it’s the responsibility of racehorse trainers to know whether they have a thorughbread that will act on the described ground, and if they don’t then don’t run the said horses.
Horses pull up lame on every going description out there, not just fast ground. A possible reason for coming back lame is the ground being unsuitable, whether it be heavy, soft, hard, firm etc. So for me it’s down to the trainer being responsible for knowing what his horse acts on.
The two reasons Ascot are watering ahead of tomorrow are 1) the Clerk of the Course has told trainers the ground will be no worse than Good to Firm all week, and 2) a few (relatively new) track records were broken today and panic has set in.
What the Clerk of the Course should have said is that the ground is Good – Good to Firm in places today, but if the dry weather continues we could be racing on Good to Firm or even Firm ground by the end of the week. Trainers then know exactly where they stand.
Gingertipster I don’t think anyone is disputing the harder the ground the more dangerous it becomes, what I (and I think BB) is saying is that the ground hasn’t reached anywhere near hard yet and therefore there is no need to water, especially with showers forecast for Friday. No water was put onto the course during Wednesday, yet at 6pm the description was Good to Firm, Good in place. I can’t see how that is going to change to ‘road-like’ hard ground overnight.
Ginger
As is obvious you cannot produce any evidence. All you can say is " I had a chat with someone who… ". Should we formulate sport and welfare policy for one of the UK’s largest industries on that basis? You are also confused and I haven’t the inclination, having been through this a 1000 times, to get you up to speed on the matter. What you refer to is jumps racing, where faster ground leads to increased speed – speed around and over obstacles which can lead to a higher risk of injury. Similarly with jockeys who will hit the harder ground having fallen off their horse.
Do flat horses jump obstacles in your experience?
Do flat jockeys fall off their horse day-in, day-out in your experience?If the answer to both is "no", you need to reassess your position, read what Jose has stated at the bottom of page 1, and return to my direct questions to you about evidence, not opinion.
Again, I await your comments about the evidence. I’m asking for evidence of policy. I haven’t made the policy up, I’m asking why it was made up. I don’t need to be an expert to do that.
Racecourses should water to TRY and get good-firm.
When racecourses try for good-firm and get it slightly wrong, they end up with firm ground. Which is just about o.k.
If they TRIED to get FIRM ground they could concievably end up with HARD going, and that (I believe) results in abandonment.
Value Is EverythingRacecourses should water to TRY and get good-firm.
Can you state why?
Can you provide evidence as to why?
Can you explain why racecourses water to maintain good ground, and ground that is good, good to firm in places on days that are not sunny?Thanks.
So if there’s any trainers out there that have a stable full of horses that like it ‘rattling’ hard, or ‘like a road’ (as it’s often described), then they may as well pack the job up.
Get a few greyhounds instead, it’s much cheaper
Goodnight.
Ginger
As is obvious you cannot produce any evidence. All you can say is " I had a chat with someone who… ". Should we formulate sport and welfare policy for one of the UK’s largest industries on that basis? You are also confused and I haven’t the inclination, having been through this a 1000 times, to get you up to speed on the matter. What you refer to is jumps racing, where faster ground leads to increased speed – speed around and over obstacles which can lead to a higher risk of injury. Similarly with jockeys who will hit the harder ground having fallen off their horse.
Do flat horses jump obstacles in your experience?
Do flat jockeys fall off their horse day-in, day-out in your experience?If the answer to both is "no", you need to reassess your position, read what Jose has stated at the bottom of page 1, and return to my direct questions to you about evidence, not opinion.
Again, I await your comments about the evidence. I’m asking for evidence of policy. I haven’t made the policy up, I’m asking why it was made up. I don’t need to be an expert to do that.
The vet I spoke to did reseach on FLAT as well as jump racing. I note BB, although I have spoken to two people involved with this topic (evidence), who you don’t want to believe. You yourself are unwilling to come up with any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your hunch.
If you are willing to conclude a horse or jockey falling on firm ground is more dangerous. Then why are you not considering the impact of a horse’s hoof / leg pounding on firm ground as he gallops? It is bound to be more suseptable to injury than on good ground. Think about it!
Value Is EverythingRacecourses should water to TRY and get good-firm.
Can you state why?
Yes, read my earlier post, because they can get it slightly wrong, watering to produce good-firm going can result in Firm ground. Where as watering to produce Firm can produce hard going. The latter going discription is unsatisfactory.
Can you provide evidence as to why?
Already done so.
Can you explain why racecourses water to maintain good ground, and ground that is good, good to firm in places on days that are not sunny?
They don’t. They water to maintain good-firm. Ascot watering is to try and ensure it does not reach very firm.
Thanks.
Now, what about coming up with some evidence yourself?
Value Is EverythingWhat we should be angry about is misleading discriptions of going reports, not the watering policy.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Could you point me to the evidence you have produced, Big Buck’s, as I appear to have blinked and missed it.
Let’s try a little practical experiment.
When the weather allows, stretch your legs out on an area of firm turf and get a feel for how much force is required to move your feet further apart. Then apply a small amount of water to the same patch of ground and try again. It’s suddenly much easier, isn’t it? Now imagine half a tonne of horse, leading a field of 30, doing exactly the same thing at 40mph.
Does the highway code suggest maintaining the ‘two second gap’ when driving on a wet road, or does it advise drivers to increase it to four seconds? The same principal applies here. Were ground left to harden without watering, we could conceivably reach a point where the going is described as firm all round (something Jamie Spencer hinted at at York recently before claiming that it was ‘ridiculous’ and ‘too fast’ – but what does he know). In such an event a small amount of rain would not have sufficient time to soak in to the ground to render the surface safe – it would be, as I said before, closer to an ice rink than a racecourse.
Now, that’s only one factor requiring consideration, but maintaining what we understand to be good-to-firm ground (especially with Ascot’s much lauded covering of grass) makes perfect sense whichever way you look at it. If it rains, it can get in. If it doesn’t rain, no horse is adversely affected (that is to say that no horse will be able to use the ground as an excuse for a below-par performance).
As far as the physical effect ever-hardening ground has on horses, why does common sense not prevail over scientific evidence?
Consider a second experiment.
If you are able to do so, run three miles at a sensible pace on an athletics track. Then run three miles at a sensible pace on tarmac. How do your knees and hips feel in comparison to your first outing? Should you find no discernable difference, the following might prove interesting:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threa … 44092.html
Why do you think it is that trainers are made with rubber soles rather than, for the sake of argument, wood? To reduce noise? To stop woodlice eating your shoes whenever it rains? To keep the need to visit a carpenter when you drag your feet to a minimum?
No. It’s to reduce the impact on our joints in such a way that the energy from our legs isn’t returned in full by the surface on which we’re running – energy, like momentum, is always maintained in any collision – yet isn’t dissipated so much that we have to work overly hard to obtain the same level of performance (running on sand, for instance, being more physically demanding than running on grass).
Of all of life’s as yet unanswered questions, I don’t think Sherlock Holmes would have required Watson to explain why horses shouldn’t run on roads (or anything like firm ground).
So if there’s any trainers out there that have a stable full of horses that like it ‘rattling’ hard, or ‘like a road’ (as it’s often described), then they may as well pack the job up.
Get a few greyhounds instead, it’s much cheaper
Goodnight.
That’s just rediculous. A horse who goes on FIRM will also go on GOOD-FIRM. Even a firm ground horse runs a greater risk of injury on FIRM (or HARD) than he does on GOOD-FIRM.
Value Is EverythingClearly the most important factor is the horses welfare. In this regard i would say with confidence most posters on here would utterly agree with this stance.
However i believe in current times and the politically correct world we live in, racing authorities (and organisations in every other walk of life) have got their work cut out to ensure they do not offend the protester groups who will cry "thats dangerous/wrong/cruel/etc etc" at every possible opportunity.
If there is proof (statistics, detailed analysis etc) showing something is endangering horses lives then of course action must be taken. However too often it is the case changes are made based on heresay and fear of what these groups shall say/do if something goes wrong.
In this debate it has been stated that it is more dangerous for horses to race on firm going. As one poster points out there are seven types of going in operation (for turf flat racing) and this has been the case for many many years.
What i cannot understand or accept without some statistical data is why all of a sudden it has now become the case firm going is more dangerous. If it is then there must be evidence to back it up and it also must be instantly available to those who monitor horse casualties etc. It cant just be based on a few people saying so because there are bound to be a few others saying the opposite.
To my knowledge there is no statistical data of this type (and if there was it would have been acted upon) and it is down to those taking the safety stance on the issue to give the facts and figures from a reliable source.
Otherwise no matter what the debate a person can simply say "its dangerous" about literally anything.
I also reckon comparing firm ground to running on a road is ridiculous as is comparing human feet to horses hoofs (do you want to ban marathons?).
Just saying its common sense is another way of saying im right and your wrong. I could say its common sense to presume if its been okay for the last 100 years and theres no proof to the contrary then why isnt it now.
Seems to me BB, every time there is watering at a big meeting you come up with the same arguement; without putting forward any evidence to substantiate your claims.
Value Is EverythingGreat post, until it gets slaughtered. But I’ll leave that to whoever wants to attempt it.
I’ve read firstly that Firm ground is unsafe, then the following load of rubbish in no partiuclar order.
1) Jamie Spencer’s view on the ground matters more than a clerk of the course who PRODUCED Good To Firm ground, as the BHA (yes, it’s convenient to quote them when it suits, isn’t it?) course inspector said it was GOOD TO FIRM at York. There was NOTHING wrong with the ground at York.
So the question has to be asked again, as Good To Firm ground must be more unsafe than Good ground, why are we able to race tomorrow? Surely for Firm ground to be unsafe, Hard ground has to be more unsafe than Firm ground, and, as a result, Good ground must be safer than Good To Firm ground?
Yes, read my earlier post, because they can get it slightly wrong, watering to produce good-firm going can result in Firm ground. Where as watering to produce Firm can produce hard going. The latter going discription is unsatisfactory.
2) We’ve already had the Good To Firm ground produced. Is the track really going to be Hard by Saturday, and if so that is a drainage issue.
Racecourses should water to TRY and get good-firm.
When racecourses try for good-firm and get it slightly wrong, they end up with firm ground. Which is just about o.k.
If they TRIED to get FIRM ground they could concievably end up with HARD going, and that (I believe) results in abandonment.
3) So the same poster as the copied, italic text from point 2 says Firm ground is just about OK.
The truth is between the two who are arguing for watering for the sake of it, (do note Chris Stickels comments tonight btw where he says the jockeys were happy with the ground) they don’t have a clue what is unsafe. One seemingly reckons Firm ground is unsafe, and if it’s not the watering issue becomes a serious one, and the other thinks it’s OK, unless I’ve misunderstood it all, although I doubt it.
That’s just rediculous. A horse who goes on FIRM will also go on GOOD-FIRM. Even a firm ground horse runs a greater risk of injury on FIRM (or HARD) than he does on GOOD-FIRM.
Lets add that in just to finish this off.
Firm ground’s safe, unsafe, more of a risk etc. Just make it up as you go along. Ridiculous, you got that right Gingertipster.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.